Companies require a Valid license for the Import of laptops & tablets

Introduction

On 20th March 2024, the Indian government notified the Fact Check Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the Fact Check Unit (FCU) of the Central Government. This PIB FCU is notified under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023).

However, the next day, on 21st March 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre's decision. The IT Amendment Rules of 2023 provide that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) can notify a fact-checking body to identify and tag what it considers fake news with respect to any activity of the Centre. The stay will be in effect till the Bombay High Court finally decides the challenges to the IT Rules amendment 2023.

The official notification dated 20th March 2024 read as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (v) of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Central Government hereby notifies the Fact Check Unit under the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the fact check unit of the Central Government for the purposes of the said sub-clause, in respect of any business of the Central Government.”

Impact of the notification

The impact of notifying PIB’s FCU under Rule 3(1)(b)(v)will empower the PIB’s FCU to issue direct takedown directions to the concerned Intermediary. Any information posted on social media in relation to the business of the central government that has been flagged as fake or false by the FCU has to be taken down by the concerned intermediary. If it fails to do so, it will lose the 'safe harbour' immunity against legal proceedings arising out of such information posted offered under Section 79 of IT Act, 2000.

Safe harbour provision u/s 79 of IT Act, 2000

Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 serves as a safe harbour provision for intermediaries. The provision states that "an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him". However, it is notable that this legal immunity cannot be granted if the intermediary "fails to expeditiously" take down a post or remove a particular content after the government or its agencies flag that the information is being used unlawfully. Furthermore, intermediaries are obliged to observe due diligence on their platforms.

Rule 3 (1)(b)(v) Under IT Amendment Rules 2023

Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of The Information Technology(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [updated as on 6.4.2023] provides that all intermediaries [Including a social media intermediary, a significant social media intermediary and an online gaming intermediary], are required to make "reasonable efforts” or perform due diligence to ensure that their users do not "host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share” any information that “deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicates any misinformation or information which is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature or, in respect of any business of the Central Government, is identified as fake or false or misleading by such fact check unit of the Central Government as the Ministry may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify”.

PIB - FCU

The PIB - Fact Check Unit(FCU) was established in November 2019 to prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation about the Indian government. It also provides an accessible platform for people to report suspicious or questionable information related to the Indian government. This FCU is responsible for countering misinformation on government policies, initiatives, and schemes. The FCU is tasked with addressing misinformation about government policies, initiatives, and schemes, either directly (Suo moto) or through complaints received. On 20th March 2024,via a gazetted notification, the Centre notified the Press Information Bureau's fact-check unit (FCU) as the nodal agency to flag fake news or misinformation related to the central government. However, The Supreme Court stayed the Centre's notification of the Fact-Check Unit under IT Amendment Rules 2023.

Concerns with IT Amendment Rules 2023

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MeitY) amended the IT Rules of 2021. The ‘Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023’ (IT Amendment Rules 2023) were notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on 6 April 2023. The rules introduced new provisions to establish a fact-checking unit with respect to “any business of the central government” and also made other provisions pertaining to online gaming.

The Constitutional validity of  IT Amendment Rules 2023 has been challenged through a writ petition challenging the IT Rules 2023 in the Bombay High Court. The contention is that the rules raise "serious constitutional questions," and Rule 3(1)(b)(v), as amended in 2023, impacts the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would fall for analysis by the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Setting up of FCU

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandra Hud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra convened to hear Special Leave Petitions filed by Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines challenging the refusal of the Bombay High Court to stay the implementation of the IT Rules 2023. The Supreme Court has stayed the Union's notification of the Fact-Check Unit under the IT Amendment Rules 2023, pending the Bombay High Court's decision on the challenges to the IT Rules Amendment 2023.

Emphasizing Freedom of Speech in the Democratic Environment

The advent of advanced technology has also brought with it a new generation of threats and concerns: the misuse of said technology in the form of deepfakes and misinformation is one of the most pressing concerns plaguing society today. This realization has informed the critical need for stringent regulatory measures. The government is rightly prioritizing the need to immediately address digital threats, but there must be a balance between our digital security policies and the need to respect free speech and critical thinking. The culture of open dialogue is the bedrock of democracy. The ultimate truth is shaped through free trade in ideas within a competitive marketplace of ideas. The constitutional scheme of democracy places great importance on the fundamental value of liberty of thought and expression, which has also been emphasized by the Supreme Court in its various judgements.

The IT Rules, 2023,provide for creating a "fact check unit" to identify fake or false or misleading information “in relation to any business of the central government "This move raised concerns within the media fraternity, who argued that the determination of fake news cannot be placed solely in the hands of the government. It is also worth noting that if users post something illegal, they can still be punished under laws that already exist in the country.

We must take into account that freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute right. Article 19(2) imposes restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and expression. Hence, there has to be a balance between regulatory measures and citizens' fundamental rights.

Nowadays, the term ‘fake news’ is used very loosely. Additionally, there is a dearth of clearly established legal parameters that define what amounts to fake or misleading information. Clear definitions of the terms should be established to facilitate certainty as to what content is ‘fake news’ and what content is not. Any such restriction on speech must align with the exceptions outlined in Article19(2) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

Through a government notification, PIB - FCU was intended to act as a government-run fact-checking body to verify any information about the Central Government. However, the apex court of India stayed the Centre's notification. Now, the matter is sub judice, and we hope for the judicial analysis of the validity of IT Amendment Rules 2023.

Notably, the government is implementing measures to combat misinformation in the digital world, but it is imperative that we strive for a balance between regulatory checks and individual rights. As misinformation spreads across all sectors, a centralised approach is needed in order to tackle it effectively. Regulatory reforms must take into account the crucial roleplayed by social media in today’s business market: a huge amount of trade and commerce takes place online or is informed by digital content, which means that the government must introduce policies and mechanisms that continue to support economic activity. Collaborative efforts between the government and its agencies, technological companies, and advocacy groups are needed to deal with the issue better at a higher level.

References

• https://egazette.gov.in/(S(xzwt4b4haaqja32xqdiksbju))/ViewPDF.aspx
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2015792
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govt-notifies-fact-checking-unit-under-pib-to-check-fake-news-misinformation-related-to-centre/articleshow/108653787.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/43/commentary/it-amendment-rules-2023.html#:~:text=The%20Information%20Technology%20Amendment%20Rules,to%20be%20false%20or%20misleading
• ‍https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-kunal-kamra-editors-guild-notifying-fact-check-unit-it-rules-2023-252998
• ‍https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/21/india-top-court-stays-government-move-to-form-fact-check-unit-under-it-laws
• ‍https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology 28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital% 20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf
• 2024 SCC On Line Bom 360

‍

Introduction

India’s telecommunications infrastructure is one of the world’s largest and most complex, serving over a billion users across urban and rural landscapes. With rampant digitisation and mobile penetration, the vulnerability of telecom networks to cyber threats has grown exponentially. On April 24, 2025, the Ministry of Communications (MOC) released a draft of the “Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025,” to update the prior Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024, to improve cybersecurity in India's telecom industry and fortify network security. Public comments and recommendations regarding these draft rules can be sent to the department by July 24, 2025, after they have been made available for public comment. These rules are enacted under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, to enhance national cybersecurity in the telecom domain. These rules aim to prevent misuse of telecom networks and reinforce data and infrastructure protection mechanisms across service providers. 

‍

Safeguarding the Spectrum: Unpacking the 2025 Cybersecurity Revisions

‍

The menace of fraudulent SIM cards deals the issue of cyber threats a fresh hand. The rising number of digital scams can also be attributed to unverified or fake mobile numbers. Fraudulent SIM cards have often been linked to various cybercrimes such as phishing, vishing, SIM swapping and identity theft. The situation has worsened in the face of easy availability of pre-activated SIM cards and weak KYC enforcement. In a recent example, as per reports of June 28, 2025, the Special Task Force (STF) found that the accused was operating a criminal nexus where he utilised fake documents and the Aadhaar credentials of law-abiding locals to activate numerous SIM cards. Following activation, the SIMs were either transferred to other telecom carriers for additional exploitation or sold illegally. This poses a serious concern for the data protection of vulnerable individuals, especially those in rural areas, whose credentials have been compromised. 

Given the adverse state of cybersecurity in the telecom industry, the Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024, were passed on 22nd November, 2024, which put various telecom entities under an obligation to actively prevent cybersecurity threats by adopting such policies that mitigate cybersecurity risks and notify the same to the Central Government. The 2024 Telecom Cybersecurity Rules were a significant step in fortifying India’s telecom infrastructure against cyber threats, but they primarily focused on licensed telecom service providers, leaving behind a large segment of digital platforms operating outside the traditional telecom framework largely unregulated. 

‍

Expanding the Net: Key Revisions Under the 2025 Cybersecurity Amendment Rules

‍

The amended rules of 2025 adequately address the regulatory blind spot that is created by the rapid expansion of online services, fintech apps, OTT platforms and social media networks, as these platforms often rely on telecom identifiers such as mobile numbers for user onboarding and service delivery. This regulatory blind spot was exploited for fraud, impersonation and other cybercrimes, especially in the absence of standardised identity verification mechanisms. The proposed regulations would give the government the authority to require private companies’ clients to provide identification if they use a mobile number. For a fee, businesses can also undertake this kind of verification on their own. “ The draft rules introduce a new category called “Telecommunication Identifier User Entities’ (TIUEs), extending cybersecurity compliance obligations to a broad category that now captures any entity using telecom identifiers to deliver digital services. It also creates a unified, government-backed verification framework, enabling better interoperability and uniform user identification norms across sectors. 

‍

While strengthening national digital security is the goal of the Telecom Cybersecurity (Amendment) Rules, 2025, the proposed rules create a great deal of uncertainty and compliance difficulties, especially for private digital platforms. A broad definition of Telecommunication Identifier User businesses (TIUEs) may include a variety of businesses, including e-commerce services, fintech apps and OTT platforms, under the purview of required mobile number verification. Given that many platforms already have advanced internal processes in place to verify users, this scope uncertainty creates significant concerns regarding operational clarity. 

‍

Conclusion

The Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025, represent a necessary evolution in India’s quest to secure its telecom ecosystem amid growing cyber threats. The draft regulations recognise the evolving landscape of digital services by broadening the legal scope to encompass Telecommunication Identifier User Entities (TIUEs). Though the goal of creating a strong, transparent and accountable framework is admirable, more clarification and stakeholder involvement are required due to the scope’s vagueness and the possible compliance burden on digital platforms. A truly durable telecom cybersecurity regime will require striking the correct balance between security, viability and privacy. 

‍

References 

‍

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-government-enforces-key-sections-of-the-telecommunication-act-2023
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/govt-notifies-the-telecommunications-telecom-cyber-security-rules-2024 
• https://the420.in/uttarakhand-stf-busts-fake-sim-racket-linked-to-cyber-crimes-and-nepal-network/ 
• https://www.thehindu.com/business/dot-puts-out-draft-rules-to-enable-mobile-user-validation/article69741367.ece ‍
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/28/dot-telecom-cyber-security-draft-policy-update/

Introduction:

This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.

What is Cyber espionage?

Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments. 

Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.

Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.

The US Perspective

In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality. 

Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.

Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.

Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.

The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage

According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.    

China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage

China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.

China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.

China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.

Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.

Conclusion

In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.

‍