IT Rules 2021: General Framework of the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are the operating code of the Indian internet: they define the platform categories, prescribe the due diligence on which the s.79 safe harbour hangs, and extend a Code of Ethics to digital news and OTT publishers. Topics 22, 23 and 67 applied particular parts; this note, as asked, covers the Rules as one framework: the background, the three Parts and their administration, every defined actor, the grievance architecture, the amendments of 2022, 2023 and 2025-26, and the litigation that determines what is actually in force today.

1. Background and the 2011 Rules Replaced

Figure 1: From the 2011 Rules to the current framework

• The 2011 Rules. The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, made under s.79(2)(c), supplied the first due diligence code: prohibited content categories, a 36 hour response obligation and a Grievance Officer. Shreya Singhal read their knowledge requirement down to the court order and government notification standard.
• The pressure for replacement. The Prajwala proceedings on sexual abuse imagery, the 2018 draft amendments proposing traceability and proactive tools, parliamentary concern over misinformation and platform power, and the growth of digital news and OTT services outside any regulatory scheme.
• Notification. The 2021 Rules were notified on 25 February 2021 under s.87(2)(z) and (zg) read with ss.79(2)(c) and 69A(2), superseding the 2011 Rules; the additional SSMI duties took effect after a three month compliance window.
• Two ministries. Part II is administered by MeitY, Part III by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the first time the Act's rulemaking reached the content of digital media publishers, and the seed of the vires challenge.

2. The Structure

Figure 2: The three Parts and their administration

• Part I: Preliminary. The definitions that organise the whole scheme, examined below.
• Part II: due diligence by intermediaries. Rules 3 to 7: the general due diligence of Rule 3, the grievance mechanism and its appellate layer, the additional obligations of significant social media intermediaries in Rule 4, voluntary user verification, and Rule 7, under which failure to observe the Rules forfeits s.79 protection and exposes the intermediary to liability under any law (Topic 67)
• Part III: the digital media Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics for publishers of news and current affairs content and publishers of online curated content, the three tier grievance structure, self classification of OTT content with age ratings and access controls, and the Ministry's oversight including emergency blocking. Its operation against publishers stands partly stayed (section 6 below)

3. The Defined Actors

Figure 3: The categories the Rules create

• Intermediary. Carries the s.2(1)(w) meaning; the Rules then carve the field into functional categories.
• Social media intermediary. An intermediary which primarily or solely enables online interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services.
• Significant social media intermediary and the threshold. A social media intermediary with registered users in India above the threshold the Central Government notifies: fifty lakh, notified alongside the Rules. Crossing it triggers the Rule 4 apparatus: the Chief Compliance Officer, the nodal contact person and the Resident Grievance Officer resident in India, monthly compliance reports, and, for messaging services, the contested first originator identification.
• Publisher of news and current affairs content. An online paper, news portal, news aggregator or news agency publishing news and current affairs by way of systematic business activity, excluding replica e-papers of print newspapers, which stay with print regulation.
• Publisher of online curated content and online curated content. The OTT category: a publisher making available to users, on demand, curated audio-visual content other than news, over the internet; the content so made available is online curated content.
• News aggregator. An entity performing a significant role in determining the news and current affairs content being made available, aggregating, curating and presenting such content of others.
• User account and grievance. The account registered by a user with an intermediary or publisher; a grievance includes any complaint of violation of the Rules or the Act, the term on which the redressal clocks run.

4. The Grievance Architecture

• Grievance Officer (Part II). Every intermediary appoints a Grievance Officer, publishes the name and contact mechanism, acknowledges a complaint within 24 hours and disposes of it within fifteen days; specified complaints carry shorter clocks, intimate imagery within 24 hours as notified in 2021 and two hours under the 2026 Amendment, and grievance resolution generally within seven days under the same amendment.
• Grievance Appellate Committees. Created by the 2022 Amendment: a user aggrieved by the Grievance Officer's decision may appeal within thirty days to a GAC, a three member online committee that adopts an online dispute resolution mechanism and endeavours to decide within thirty days; three GACs were constituted and began work in early 2023, and intermediaries must comply with their orders.
• Part III tiers. For publishers: Level I, the publisher's own Grievance Officer on a fifteen day clock; Level II, self regulating bodies of publishers headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge or an eminent person; Level III, the Ministry's oversight mechanism with its Inter-Departmental Committee, advisories and blocking route.

Figure 4: The three tier structure of Part III

5. The Amendments

Figure 5: The framework's evolution by amendment

• 2022. Besides the GACs: intermediaries must ensure compliance with their rules and make reasonable efforts to cause users not to host the prohibited categories, must respect the constitutional rights of users, and must publish rules in English or any Eighth Schedule language.
• 2023. The online real money gaming framework with self regulatory verification bodies, which was never operationalised and stands overtaken by the dedicated online gaming legislation; and the fact check unit route, struck down in 2024.
• October 2025 proposals. Draft amendments on synthetically generated information released for consultation: definitions, prominent labelling and embedded provenance metadata, and verification duties for significant platforms.
• The 2026 Amendment. Notified with effect from 20 February 2026, finalising the synthetic content regime, labelling and provenance for synthetically generated content and reasonable verification measures, and tightening the clocks: action on Rule 3(1)(d) orders within three hours, intimate imagery complaints within two hours, and grievance resolution within seven days (Topics 21 and 67)
• The consolidated position. The Rules as they stand today are the 2021 text as amended in 2022, 2023 and 2026, minus the struck down fact check unit and subject to the Part III stays, the version every current answer should describe.

6. The Rules in the Courts

Figure 6: What stands, what is stayed, what is gone

• The Part III stays. In the Leaflet and Nikhil Wagle matters (2021) the Bombay High Court stayed the operation of Rules 9(1) and 9(3), the obligation of publishers to observe the Code of Ethics and its enforcement machinery, as prima facie beyond the rulemaking power of a statute addressed to intermediaries and chilling under Article 19(1)(a); the Madras High Court echoed the concern, other High Courts protected individual petitioners, and the challenges stand gathered for common adjudication, so Part III's registration and furnishing of information operate while its Code of Ethics enforcement against publishers remains under stay.
• Kunal Kamra (Bom HC, 2024). The 2023 fact check unit provision struck down as vague and overbroad, ending that route.
• X Corp v. Union of India (Kar HC, 2025). The Sahyog portal for issuing and tracking Rule 3(1)(d) intimations upheld, the court holding the takedown route distinct from s.69A blocking.
• The continuing questions. Traceability under Rule 4(2) against end to end encryption, the breadth of the prohibited content categories, and the compressed 2026 clocks are the pressure points the pending litigation carries forward.

7. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the structure of the IT Rules, 2021?

Three Parts. Part I contains the definitions, including social media intermediary, significant social media intermediary with its fifty lakh user threshold, publisher of news and current affairs content and publisher of online curated content. Part II, administered by MeitY, prescribes the due diligence of intermediaries in Rules 3 to 7, with Rule 7 withdrawing the Section 79 safe harbour on non-observance. Part III, administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, applies a Code of Ethics to digital news and OTT publishers through a three tier grievance structure, though its enforcement against publishers is partly stayed.

What did each amendment to the 2021 Rules do?

The 2022 Amendment created the Grievance Appellate Committees and strengthened the intermediary's obligations toward users' rights. The 2023 Amendment added the online real money gaming framework, never operationalised, and the fact check unit, struck down in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2024). The October 2025 draft proposals on synthetically generated information were finalised as the 2026 Amendment, in force from 20 February 2026, which requires labelling and provenance for synthetic content and tightens the clocks to three hours for ordered removals, two hours for intimate imagery and seven days for grievances.

8. Related Topics

• Topic 67: Section 79. The safe harbour these Rules condition.
• Topic 22: IT Act and Social Media. Rules 3 and 4 applied to platforms in detail.