What the advisory says
India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology sent an advisory to all social media intermediaries on 8 October, from its Cyber Laws Division, under file number 16(2)/2026-CyberLaws and over the signature of joint secretary Ajit Kumar. It takes effect immediately. The ministry did not publish it; its text reached the public through MediaNama.
The advisory asks platforms to apply “enhanced diligence” to false, misleading or manipulated content that could affect public order. It singles out old photographs and videos presented as current events, synthetically generated audio-visual content, impersonation of public authorities or of individuals, and material that could incite violence.
Four operative requests follow. Platforms should prevent and stop promoting unlawful information in the categories already listed in the IT Rules; “accord priority to reports/complaints” from authorised government agencies where content has implications for public order; “identify and appropriately label/contextualise manipulated, synthetically generated or misleading content”, particularly where it depicts a current event; and run awareness measures telling users to check source, date and authenticity before sharing. A further clause asks for timely cooperation with law enforcement. MediaNama notes that the numbering skips clause (v), which is not in the copy that circulated.
Why the labelling clause is wider than the rules
India already regulates AI-generated media. The amendment to the IT Rules notified on 10 February and in force from 20 February defines “synthetically generated information” as audio, visual or audio-visual content that appears real, which leaves text outside it.
The advisory’s labelling clause carries no such limit, does not mention the February amendment, and adds “manipulated” and “misleading” to the list. MediaNama’s point is that this leaves each platform to decide what counts as misleading, with no definition and no stated process.
The context
The advisory landed as protests ran in Delhi and Mumbai over the special intensive revision of electoral rolls, with a demonstration called at Jantar Mantar for 10 October seeking the resignation of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Deccan Herald reported that it also followed a deepfake video of Telugu film actors that spread widely during the week.
The objection
The Internet Freedom Foundation called for the advisory to be withdrawn on 9 October. Its central argument is about authority: section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act conditions safe harbour on due diligence set out in notified rules, and “enhanced diligence” appears neither in the Act nor in the Rules. The advisory names no provision empowering the ministry to issue it, and was approved by an unnamed “competent authority”.
The group also says the text drops the “knowingly and intentionally” qualifier from rule 3(1)(b)(v) and adds “social tranquility”, which is not among the grounds for restricting speech in article 19(2) of the constitution. Asking platforms to prevent such content, it argues, amounts to the proactive monitoring the Rules permit only in narrow categories, and “authorised Government agencies” and “priority” are both left undefined.
What is being asked of whom
IFF wants the ministry to publish the advisory in full, including the missing clause, to state the provision it was issued under, and either to withdraw it or to confirm that it creates no obligation beyond the Act and the Rules. It also wants disclosure of which agencies are filing complaints under it and how many.
Of platforms, it asks for disclosure of every government request received under the advisory, action only on requests that meet the standard set in Shreya Singhal, no proactive filtering or downranking of protest content on the strength of the advisory, and notice to users when an action follows a government complaint.
What to watch
Whether MeitY publishes the text, and whether any platform says publicly what it is doing in response. Neither has happened yet, and an advisory that is not published is one whose effects can only be measured from the outside.
