The Indian government, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (\u201cMeitY\u201d) introduced the draft IT Rules, 2026<\/strong><\/a> on March 30 as a protective mechanism to combat online obscenity, AI-generated works, content and data privacy and to protect the safety and welfare of the citizens. The new draft rules are proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. However, the introduction of these rules, in reality, is a threat for feminist voices; the rules in specific authorise excessive government control, in other words, digital authoritarianism.\u00a0<\/p>\n The government claims to filter and make the online world a less intimidating place for both children and women. At a time, the internet and social media platforms are used as a main conveyor of activism, a crucial space for suppressed voices, dissent, and expanding government\u2019s over-censorship and control over free speech risk.\u00a0<\/p>\n The draft rules are currently under evaluation by the MeitY and are open for public feedback<\/strong><\/a> until 29th April 2026. Therefore, the article intends to briefly analyse key moot points to navigate concerns if the rules are to be implemented.\u00a0<\/p>\n UNDP widely reports that 38% of women have experienced digital violence. The recorded violence, to name a few, has been in the form of hate speech, rape threats, deepfake pornography, and harassment campaigns that form a part of today\u2019s digital reality. Over the last decades, women\u2019s and minority voices have often struggled to portray the truth of bearing harsh discrimination and digital abuse, as noted by Amnesty International<\/strong><\/a>: \u201conline violence forces many to self-censor or withdraw from public discourse.\u201d<\/p>\n The government claims to filter and make the online world a less intimidating place for both children and women. At a time, the internet and social media platforms are used as a main conveyor of activism, a crucial space for suppressed voices, dissent, and expanding government\u2019s over-censorship and control over free speech risk.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n While the criminal laws in India have seen a plethora of reforms, it is still a work in progress to be more women- centric<\/strong><\/a>; the legislators still find ways to morally remove the safe-harbour right<\/strong><\/a> from platforms and invariably from the citizens that access the platforms.\u00a0<\/p>\n The draft Rule 3(4) requires platforms to comply with \u201cAdvisories, SOPs, Guidelines and Directions of MeitY\u201d. In specific, such strict compliance without noted exemptions is in contradiction of the existing Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. Earlier, platforms including social media companies were allowed to follow a due diligence protocol. Whereas presently the draft rules focus more on the data localisation requirement of strict adherence. Such impositions allow for the government to modify, remove or block content from the existing creator universe at any given duration without prior notice for reasons concerning national security and safety. Further, this is a divergent move to the progressive Digital Nagarik<\/strong><\/a> protection scheme aimed at consultation and free digital speech for all.\u00a0<\/p>\n In legal precedents like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan<\/em> and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India<\/em>, the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on free speech as arbitrary enforcement. Similarly, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India<\/em> reaffirmed that restrictions on online expression must meet reasonable standards of necessity and proportionality. Safety must therefore be uniform and right based, with clearly defined thresholds, rather than imposed through paternalism.\u00a0<\/p>\n Overreaching surveillance is not protection\u2014it is a backdoor to digital authoritarianism\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Another concerning aspect of the draft IT Rules is the attempt to bring user-generated \u201cnews and current affairs\u201d content under regulatory supervision. This inclusion is not a minor technical change; it is a visceral shift in policymaking. In India, feminist activities and disclosures are not restricted to traditional media institutions and outlets. Survivors speak through social media platforms. It is not long forgotten, the social media virality that Dalit and Bahujan women created on caste violence through X threads. Queer and LGBTQ+<\/strong><\/a> communities and activists build relevance, share resources and amplify voices on digital platforms that mainstream media continues to marginalise. To classify such free expression as \u201cnews\u201d is a possible threat under the new draft rules. This is further subject to regulatory scrutiny and hostile take-down of information. Activism and minority voices that have endured years of resistance and historical exclusion in mainstream media have found their footing on social media platforms; these now face a real threat of erasure in the absence of clear exemptions under the rules.\u00a0<\/p>\n The esteemed work of Indian feminist thinkers such as Sharmila Rege has laid emphasis on\u00a0caste and gender in India being inseparable axes of power. Digital media has been an exception to such impositions; social media platforms have enabled women to bypass traditional gatekeepers and assert their own narratives. Yet, expansive government control over online expression through the draft IT Rules threatens to undo the progress that digital feminism has built over decades. Hence, the intersection is crucial; regulations that seem fair and neutral on record can disproportionately impact those already at the margins.\u00a0<\/p>\n Overreaching surveillance is not protection or a safety net\u2014it enables backdoor digital authoritarianism. If these rules come into effect in their current form, they risk controlling dissent, silencing marginalised voices, and reshaping the digital ecosystem without providing a fair opportunity to hold the government accountable. In view of this, it is the duty of citizens to raise substantive concerns while the window for public feedback remains open.<\/p>\nWhen \u2018Safety\u2019 Becomes a Tool of Control<\/h3>\n
\n
![\"IT](\"https:\/\/feminisminindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/71.png-1024x576.webp\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n\n