I&B Ministry
MeiTY & Railways minister Ashwini Vaishnaw gets I&B additionally
MUMBAI: Ashwini Vaishnaw made his mark in the Modi 2.0 government by holding two portfolios – the minister of electronics and information technology as well as that of the railways. Now a third one has been added to his list of responsibilities: in Modi 3.0 that of the ministry of information and broadcasting in Modi 3.0. He replaces Anurag Thakur who ran the ministry during Modi 2.0, and was kept out of the cabinet, despite winning from his constituency.
Vaishnaw will have his hands full with the various ministries. But there is some overlap between the MeITY and I&B ministry, especially considering that both are concerned with the ballooning video streaming business with around 60-70 apps in operation.
Public pressure has forced the government to regulate the video entertainment streamers, something which MeiTY has done effectively. With the content ecosystem – which is the preserve of the I&B ministry- coming under his supervision, it could well make things easier for him.
The minister will have his work cut out for him: on the one hand, Vaishnaw will have to put in his best efforts to somehow ameliorate the popular perception that the Modi government has been manipulating the media to its own ends, through a carrot and stick approach. Then Prasar Bharti needs some amount of direction going forward, even as Doordarshan needs to be reinvented and modernised in keeping with the needs of modern viewers who are today spoilt for choice. Decisions on viewership monitoring too have to be taken.
I&B Ministry
IT Rules tweaks are clarificatory, not expansion of powers: MeitY
Govt signals flexibility as platforms push for clarity on user content rules
NEW DELHI: The Centre has sought to dial down concerns over its proposed amendments to the IT Rules, with Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology secretary S Krishnan asserting that the changes are intended as clarifications rather than an expansion of regulatory powers.
Pushing back against criticism from platforms and civil society, S Krishnan said the amendments “do not in any way actually give us wider powers” and are meant to remove ambiguity in how existing provisions are applied. He added that the trigger came largely from within the ecosystem, with intermediaries themselves seeking clearer guidance on compliance, takedowns and record preservation.
At the heart of the debate is the growing friction between platforms and policymakers over responsibility for user-generated content. Intermediaries have argued that they should not be treated on par with publishers, particularly when content is created and uploaded by users. Krishnan acknowledged this concern, noting that “a sharper distinction” between user content and publisher content is needed and is currently under examination.
The issue becomes more complex in enforcement scenarios. While registered publishers can be directly asked to modify or remove content, intermediaries often lack control over the original creator. “In such cases, the intermediary cannot direct those changes,” Krishnan explained, underlining the need for procedural nuance.
Another key proposal under discussion is to bring user-generated news and current affairs content within a more unified regulatory ambit, potentially under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The move follows suggestions that a single authority should handle such content, regardless of whether it originates from a publisher or an individual user.
Even as the government frames the amendments as a tidy-up exercise, fault lines remain. Industry players have flagged concerns over compliance burdens, especially for smaller businesses, and questioned whether advisories could effectively become binding without explicit legislative backing. Krishnan said the government is mindful of these risks and is exploring ways to ease obligations, including possible relaxations under certain provisions.
The ministry is also considering consolidating multiple advisories and guidelines into a more structured framework, a step widely seen as addressing long-standing confusion over what platforms are expected to follow.
On takedowns, the government has reiterated that due process will remain unchanged. Krishnan stressed that actions will continue to be governed by established procedures, with reasons recorded and review mechanisms in place. He also pointed to the surge in deepfakes and synthetic media as a factor behind rising content disputes, calling it a “scale challenge” for regulators.
Interestingly, Krishnan also framed social media platforms as commercial entities rather than pure vehicles of free expression, hinting at a broader shift in regulatory thinking as platform economics come into sharper focus.
With stakeholders seeking more time and, in some cases, a rollback of the proposals, the government has kept the consultation process open-ended. Krishnan said further revisions remain on the table, signalling a willingness to adapt the draft based on feedback.
For now, the message from MeitY is clear: the rules may not be tightening in intent, but the effort to define them more clearly is well underway.
