#FactCheck - AI Generated Photo Circulating Online Misleads About BARC Building Redesign

Introduction
‍

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) released the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 on March 30, 2026, inviting public comments with a response window closing on April 14. This is a limited 15-day period for public input on proposed rules that will have major constitutional impacts. The brevity and timing of this opportunity demonstrate debatable commitment to stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation by the drafting agency.

While MEITY describes the proposed amendments as "clarificatory and procedural nature," an analysis shows they will have substantive effects. Collectively, the amended language changes significantly how online speech will be regulated in India by providing the executive with more concentrated regulatory authority, limiting the required transparency of content enforcement, mandating greater retention of data without proportionality-based safeguards, and placing excessive compliance burden on intermediaries. Each of these changes has consequences beyond just changes in process and together, these changes collectively raise substantial concerns regarding compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

‍

The Constitutional Baseline: Shreya Singhal and the Limits of Intermediary Liability
‍

India’s Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 provides the foundation for intermediary liability, wherein the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, holding that intermediaries are required to act upon receiving actual knowledge only through a court order or a valid notification by the appropriate government authority. The Supreme Court’s decision intended to provide a constitutional protection to intermediaries from being subjected to informal, unverified executive pressure to take down content by requiring that any such order be subject to some level of legal objective credibility or threshold.

‍

Rule 3(4) of the proposed amendments places that balance under significant strain. By requiring intermediaries to comply with advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines issued by the Ministry — and tying non-compliance to the loss of safe harbour — the draft effectively lowers the constitutional threshold that Shreya Singhal was designed to maintain. Compliance obligations now potentially arise from instruments that carry no judicial sanction and no mandatory public disclosure.

‍

Rule 3(4): Delegated Legislation or Executive Overreach
‍

The rule-making power conferred on the Central Government under Section 87 of the IT Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the Act. It does not authorise the creation of new substantive obligations. This principle has been consistently affirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, where the Court held that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute.

Rule 3(4) tests those limits. It converts executive advisories into binding compliance instruments without a clear statutory foundation in either Section 79 or Section 87. Although the proposed rule requires that such instruments specify their legal basis, there is no requirement that they be published or made publicly accessible. This creates a framework in which legality risks becoming circular — instruments claimed to be lawful solely by reference to a provision that does not clearly authorise them, shielded from scrutiny by their own opacity. Justice Chandurkar’s judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India identified precisely this defect in the Fact Check Unit amendment. Rule 3(4) replicates the structural problem in a broader form.

‍

Compliance Pressure and the Logic of Over-Censorship
‍

The practical consequence of Rule 3(4) lies not only in its legality but in how it reshapes incentive structures for platforms. An intermediary facing the permanent threat of safe harbour loss will not wait to assess the legal merit of each advisory. The rational calculation is to comply early, broadly, and without friction. Lawful content — particularly satire, political commentary, and journalism — becomes vulnerable not because it is unlawful, but because it presents regulatory risk.

This dynamic was visible on 18 March 2026, when stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani (@hunnywhoisfunny) found his satirical Instagram reel being restricted across India. The video had accumulated over 16.5 million views. Users encountered a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. No reasons were publicly provided. No prior hearing was offered. The same night, several political parody and satire accounts were withheld on X. 

‍

Data Retention, Privacy, and the Proportionality Test
‍

The amendments to Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) extend data retention obligations by making them additional to requirements under any other law. The existing 180-day floor for retained user data — covering removed content, registration information, and associated records — becomes a minimum rather than a ceiling. No maximum is specified, and no proportionality requirement accompanies the extension.

‍

This raises direct concerns under Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which held that any state intrusion into privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Undefined retention periods, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement of purpose limitation, risk failing all three. The longer user data is held, including metadata, device information, and records of removed content,  the greater the exposure to surveillance, unauthorised access, and use beyond the original justification.

‍

Circumventing Judicial Scrutiny Through Procedural Redesign
‍

The Bombay High Court, in its August 2021 order, stayed provisions of the IT Rules’ oversight mechanism as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Madras High Court in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India affirmed that stay, cautioning that government-controlled media oversight risked undermining press independence. Both matters remain pending before the Delhi High Court.

The amendments to Rules 8(1) and 14 restructure the same oversight machinery through a modified procedural design. By extending the Inter-Departmental Committee’s jurisdiction to cover “matters” referred by the Ministry with no requirement of a complainant, no defined subject matter, and no guaranteed prior hearing, the proposed rules effectively reconstitute what courts found constitutionally suspect. Individual users posting news and current affairs content are now brought within reach of blocking mechanisms originally designed for institutional publishers.

‍

Conclusion
‍

As seen above, the Draft IT Rules 2026 are unable to meet the constitutional and judicial requirements to regulate free speech. What the proposed amendments construct is a durable system in which platforms self-censor under liability pressure, data is retained without proportionate justification, and content oversight expands through procedural adjustment rather than parliamentary legislation. Regulation of the digital public sphere is both legitimate and necessary. But it must be anchored in law, not in the quiet authority of executive advisories. The law must ultimately remain anchored in constitutional values, guided by the enduring principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

‍

The comment period closes on 14 April 2026. 

Submissions may be sent to itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.

‍

References
‍

1. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/30591fc6e322dcbcc9dae84a0f02e9e7.pdf 
2. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf 
3. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/550681ab908f8afb135b0ad42816a1c9.pdf 
4. https://neopolitico.com/india/government-blocks-viral-satirical-reel-impersonating-pm-modi-raising-fresh-questions-on-free-speech-and-digital-regulation/
5. https://internetfreedom.in/sound-the-alarm-iffs-first-read-on-meitys-draft-it-rules-second-amendment-2026/ 

‍

Introduction

‍

Misinformation is no longer a challenge limited to major global platforms or widely spoken languages. In India and many other countries, false information is increasingly disseminated through local and vernacular languages, allowing it to reach communities more directly and intimately. While regional language content has played a crucial role in expanding access to information, it has also emerged as a powerful driver of misinformation by bad actors, and it often becomes harder to detect and counter. The challenge of local language misinformation is not merely digital in nature; it is deeply social, cultural, and shaped by specific local contexts.

‍

Why Local-Language Misinformation Is More Impactful

‍

A person’s mother tongue can be a highly effective medium for misinformation because it carries emotional resonance and a sense of authenticity. Information that aligns with an individual’s linguistic and cultural background is often trusted the most. When false narratives are framed using familiar expressions, local references, or community-specific concerns, they are more readily accepted and shared more widely.

Misinformation in a language like English, which is more heavily moderated, does not usually have the same impact as content in vernacular languages. In the latter case, such content tends to circulate within closed networks such as family WhatsApp groups, regional Facebook pages, local YouTube channels, and community forums. These spaces are often perceived as safe or trusted, which lowers scepticism and encourages the spread of unverified information.

‍

The Role of Digital Platforms and Algorithms

‍

Although social media platforms have opened up access to the content of regional languages, the moderation mechanisms have not kept up. The automated control systems for content are frequently trained mainly on the dominant languages, thus missing the detection of vernacular speech, slang, dialects, and code-mixing. 

This results in a disparity in the enforcement of laws where misinformation in local languages:

• Doesn’t go through automated fact-checking tools
• Is subject to human moderation takes place at a slower pace
• Is less prone to being reported or flagged
• Gains unrestrained access for a longer time period than first imagined

The problem is further magnified by algorithmic amplification. Content that triggers very strong emotional reactions fear, anger, pride, or outrage, has a higher chance of being promoted, irrespective of its truthfulness. In regional situations, such content may very quickly sway public opinion even in very closely knit communities.

‍

Forms of Vernacular Misinformation

‍

Local-language misinformation appears in various forms:

‍

• Health misinformation, with such examples as panic remedies, vaccine myths, and misleading medical prescriptions
• Political misinformation, which is mostly identified with regional identity, local grievances, or community narratives
• Rumours regarding disasters that are very hard to control and spread hatred during floods, earthquakes, or other public emergencies
• Economic and financial frauds that are perpetrated via the local dialect authorities or trusted institutions
• Cultural and religious untruths, which are based on exploiting the core of the beliefs

‍

The regional aspect of such misinformation makes it very difficult to be corrected because the fact-checks in other languages may not get to that audience.

‍

Community-Level Consequences

‍

The effect of misinformation in local languages is not only about the misdirection of individuals. It can also:

‍

• Negatively affect the process of public institutions gaining trust
• Support social polarisation and communal strife
• Get in the way of public health measures
• Help shape the decision-making process in elections at the grassroots level
• Take advantage of the digitally illiterate poor people

In a lot of scenarios, the damage done is not instant but rather accumulative, thus changing perceptions and supporting false worldviews more.

‍

Why Countering Vernacular Misinformation Is Difficult

‍

Multiple structural layers make it difficult to respond effectively:

‍

1. Variety of Languages: Just in India, there are many languages and dialects, which are very hard to monitor universally.
2. Culturally Aware Systems: The local languages sometimes bear meanings that are deeply rooted in the culture, such as by using sarcasm or referring to history, and automated systems are unable to interpret it correctly.
3. Reporting Not Common: Users might not spot misinformation or may not want to be a part of the struggle by showing the content shared by reliable members of the community.
4. Insufficient Fact-Checking Capacity: Resources are often unavailable for fact-checking organisations to perform their duties worldwide in different languages effectively.

‍

Building a Community-Centric Response

‍

Overcoming misinformation in local languages needs a community-driven resilience approach instead of a platform-centric one. Some of the key actions are: 

‍

• Boosting Digital Literacy: Users will be able to question, verify, and put the content on hold before sharing it, thanks to the regional language awareness campaigns that will be conducted.
• Facilitating Local Fact-Checkers: Local journalists, educators, and NGOs are the main players in providing the context for verification.
• Accountability of Platforms: It is necessary for technology companies to support global moderation in several languages, the hiring of local experts, and the implementation of transparent enforcement mechanisms.
• Contemplating Policy and Governance: Regulatory frameworks should facilitate proactive risk assessment while controlling the right to free expression.
• Establishment of Trusted Local Intermediaries: Community leaders, health workers, teachers, and local organisations can engage in preventing misinformation among the networks that they are trusted in.

‍

The Way Forward

‍

Misinformation in local languages is not a minor concern; it is an issue that directly affects the future of digital trust. As the number of users accessing the internet through local language interfaces continues to grow, the volume and influence of regional content will also increase. If measures do not include all language groups, misinformation will remain least corrected and most influential at the community level, where it is also the hardest to identify and address.

Such a problem exists only if the power of language is not recognised. Therefore, one can say that it is necessary to protect the quality of information in local languages, not only for digital safety but for other factors as well, such as social cohesion, democratic participation, and public well-being.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Vernacular content has the potential to be very powerful in the ways it can inform, include and empower; meanwhile, if it goes unmonitored, it has the same potential to mislead, divide, and harm. Mis-disinformation in local languages calls for the cooperation of platforms, regulators, NGOs, and the communities involved. To win over the digital ecosystem, it has to speak all languages, not only for communication but also for protection.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/2/15
• https://afpr.in/regional-languages-shaping-indias-online-discourse/
• https://medium.com/@pratikgsalvi03/how-indias-misinformation-surge-and-media-credibility-crisis-are-undermining-democracy-public-dc8ad7be8e12
• https://projectshakti.in/
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02683962211037693
• https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-8-issue-11/505-518.pdf
• https://www.irjmets.com/upload_newfiles/irjmets71200016652/paper_file/irjmets71200016652.pdf

‍

Introduction

Discussions took place focused on cybersecurity measures, specifically addressing cybercrime in the context of emerging technologies such as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Metaverse. Session 5 of the conference focused on the interconnectedness between the darknet and cryptocurrency and the challenges it poses for law enforcement agencies and regulators. They discussed that Understanding AI is necessary for enterprises. AI models have difficulties, but we are looking forward to trustworthy AIs. and AI technology must be transparent.

Darknet and Cryptocurrency

The darknet refers to the hidden part of the internet where illicit activities have proliferated in recent years. It was initially developed to provide anonymity, privacy, and protection to specific individuals such as journalists, activists, and whistleblowers. However, it has now become a playground for criminal activities. Cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin, has been widely adopted on the darknet due to its anonymous nature, enabling anti-money laundering and unlawful transactions.

Three major points emerge from this relationship: the integrated nature of the darknet and cryptocurrency, the need for regulations to prevent darknet-based crimes, and the importance of striking a balance between privacy and security.

Key Challenges:

1. Integrated Relations: The darknet and cryptocurrency have evolved independently, with different motives and purposes. It is crucial to understand the integrated relationship between them and how criminals exploit this connection.
2. Regulatory Frameworks: There is a need for effective regulations to prevent crimes facilitated through the darknet and cryptocurrency while striking a balance between privacy and security.
3. Privacy and Security: Privacy is a fundamental right, and any measures taken to enhance security should not infringe upon individual privacy. A multistakeholder approach involving tech companies and regulators is necessary to find this delicate balance.

Challenges Associated with Cryptocurrency Use:

The use of cryptocurrency on the darknet poses several challenges. The risks associated with darknet-based cryptocurrency crimes are a significant concern. Additionally, regulatory challenges arise due to the decentralised and borderless nature of cryptocurrencies. Mitigating these challenges requires innovative approaches utilising emerging technologies.

Preventing Misuse of Technologies:

The discussion emphasised that we can step ahead of the people who wish to use these beautiful technologies meant and developed for a different purpose, to prevent from using them for crime.

Monitoring the Darknet:

The darknet, as explained, is an elusive part of the internet that necessitates the use of a special browser for access. Initially designed for secure communication by the US government, its purpose has drastically changed over time. The darknet’s evolution has given rise to significant challenges for law enforcement agencies striving to monitor its activities.

Around 95% of the activities carried out on the dark net are associated with criminal acts. Estimates suggest that over 50% of the global cybercrime revenue originates from the dark net. This implies that approximately half of all cybercrimes are facilitated through the darknet.

The exploitation of the darknet has raised concerns regarding the need for effective regulation. Monitoring the darknet is crucial for law enforcement, national agencies, and cybersecurity companies. The challenges associated with the darknet’s exploitation and the criminal activities facilitated by cryptocurrency emphasise the pressing need for regulations to ensure a secure digital landscape.

Use of Cryptocurrency on the Darknet

Cryptocurrency plays a central role in the activities taking place on the darknet. The discussion highlighted its involvement in various illicit practices, including ransomware attacks, terrorist financing, extortion, theft, and the operation of darknet marketplaces. These applications leverage cryptocurrency’s anonymous features to enable illegal transactions and maintain anonymity.

AI's Role in De-Anonymizing the Darknet and Monitoring Challenges:

1.AI’s Potential in De-Anonymizing the Darknet

During the discussion, it was highlighted how AI could be utilised to help in de-anonymizing the darknet. AI’s pattern recognition capabilities can aid in identifying and analysing patterns of behaviour within the darknet, enabling law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity experts to gain insights into its operations. However, there are limitations to what AI can accomplish in this context. AI cannot break encryption or directly associate patterns with specific users, but it can assist in identifying illegal marketplaces and facilitating their takedown. The dynamic nature of the darknet, with new marketplaces quickly emerging, adds further complexity to monitoring efforts.

2.Challenges in Darknet Monitoring

Monitoring the darknet poses various challenges due to its vast amount of data, anonymous and encrypted nature, dynamically evolving landscape, and the need for specialised access. These challenges make it difficult for law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity professionals to effectively track and prevent illicit activities.

3.Possible Ways Forward

To address the challenges, several potential avenues were discussed. Ethical considerations, striking a balance between privacy and security, must be taken into account. Cross-border collaboration, involving the development of relevant laws and policies, can enhance efforts to combat darknet-related crimes. Additionally, education and awareness initiatives, driven by collaboration among law enforcement, government entities, and academia, can play a crucial role in combating darknet activities.

The panel also addressed the questions from the audience

• How law enforcement agencies and regulators can use AI to detect and prevent crimes on the darknet and cryptocurrency? The panel answered that- Law enforcement officers should also be AI and technology ready, and that kind of upskilling program should be there in place.
• How should lawyers and the judiciary understand the problem and regulate it? The panel answered that AI should only be applied by looking at the outcomes. And Law has to be clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
• Aligning AI with human intention? Whether it’s possible? Whether can we create an ethical AI instead of talking about using AI ethically? The panel answered that we have to understand how to behave ethically. AI can beat any human. We have to learn AI. Step one is to focus on our ethical behaviour. And step two is bringing the ethical aspect to the software and technologies. Aligning AI with human intention and creating ethical AI is a challenge. The focus should be on ethical behaviour both in humans and in the development of AI technologies.

Conclusion

The G20 Conference on Crime and Security shed light on the intertwined relationship between the darknet and cryptocurrency and the challenges it presents to cybersecurity. The discussions emphasised the need for effective regulations, privacy-security balance, AI integration, and cross-border collaboration to tackle the rising cybercrime activities associated with the darknet and cryptocurrency. Addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of governments, law enforcement agencies, technology companies, and individuals committed to building a safer digital landscape.