The Government of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) has introduced the Draft IT Rules, 2026 on March 30 as a safeguard mechanism to combat online obscenity, AI-generated works, content and data protection, and to protect the safety and well-being of citizens. The new draft rules are proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Code of Ethics for Digital Media) Rules, 2021. However, the introduction of these rules actually poses a threat to feminist voices; In particular, the rules allow excessive state control, i.e. digital authoritarianism.
The government claims to be filtering the online world and making it a less intimidating place for children and women. Today, the internet and social media platforms are used as a primary vehicle for activism, a crucial space for suppressed voices, dissent, and increasing government over-censorship and control over the risk of free expression.
The draft rules are currently being evaluated by MeitY open to public feedback until April 29, 2026. Therefore, the article aims to briefly analyze the main points of contention in order to address concerns if the rules are to be implemented.
When “security” becomes a control instrument
UNDP widely reports that 38% of women have experienced digital violence. To name a few, the violence recorded came in the form of hate speech, rape threats, deepfake pornography and harassment campaigns that are part of today’s digital reality. In recent decades, women and minorities have often struggled to present the truth about harsh discrimination and digital abuse, as noted by Amnesty International: “Online violence forces many to self-censor or withdraw from public discourse.”
The government claims to be filtering the online world and making it a less intimidating place for children and women. Today, the internet and social media platforms are used as a primary vehicle for activism, a crucial space for suppressed voices, dissent, and increasing government over-censorship and control over the risk of free expression.
Although criminal law in India has undergone a plethora of reforms, it is still a work in progress to achieve more women-centered; Lawmakers are still finding ways to morally eliminate this Safe harbor law of platforms and, without exception, of the citizens who access the platforms.
The draft Rule 3(4) requires platforms to comply with the “Notices, SOPs, Guidelines and Instructions of MeitY.” Notably, such strict compliance without the said exceptions is inconsistent with the existing Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. Previously, platforms, including social media companies, were permitted to follow a due diligence protocol. While currently the draft rules are more focused on the requirement of data localization and its strict compliance. Such requirements allow the government to modify, remove or block content from the existing creator universe at any time and without notice for national security reasons. Furthermore, this is a deviant step towards the progressive Digital citizen Protection system aimed at advice and free digital expression for all.
In precedents such as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has found restrictions on free speech to be arbitrary enforcement. Similarly, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India reiterated that restrictions on online expression must meet reasonable standards of necessity and proportionality. Security must therefore be uniform and rights-based, with clearly defined thresholds, and not imposed through paternalism.
Excessive surveillance is not protection – it is a back door to digital authoritarianism
Another worrying aspect of the draft IT rules is the attempt to place user-generated “news and current affairs” content under regulatory oversight. This recording is not a minor technical change; It is a profound change in policymaking. In India, feminist activities and disclosures are not limited to traditional media institutions and channels. Survivors speak out on social media platforms. It has not long been forgotten the social media virality that Dalit and Bahujan women created through X-threads about caste violence. Queer and LGBTQ+ Communities and activists create relevance, share resources and amplify voices on digital platforms that continue to be marginalized by mainstream media. Classifying such free expression as “news” poses a potential threat under the new draft rules. This is also subject to regulatory scrutiny and hostile removal of information. Activist and minority voices that have suffered years of resistance and historic exclusion in mainstream media have gained a foothold on social media platforms; Because there are no clear exceptions in the regulations, there is now a real risk that they will be deleted.
The distinguished work of Indian feminist thinkers such as Sharmila Rege has placed emphasis on how caste and gender are inseparable axes of power in India. Digital media was an exception to such impositions; Social media platforms have enabled women to bypass traditional gatekeepers and assert their own narratives. Nevertheless, the extensive government control over online opinion through the draft IT rules threatens to undo the progress that digital feminism has made over decades. Therefore the intersection is crucial; Regulations that appear fair and neutral on the record can have a disproportionate impact on those already marginalized.
Excessive surveillance is not a protection or safety net – it enables digital authoritarianism through the back door. If these rules are enacted in their current form, they risk policing dissent, silencing marginalized voices and reshaping the digital ecosystem without providing a fair opportunity to hold the government to account. With this in mind, it is the duty of citizens to raise substantive concerns while leaving the window for public feedback open.