#FactCheck- Old CCTV Video Falsely Shared as Killing of LeT’s Amir Hamza

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 

Prebunking is a technique that shifts the focus from directly challenging falsehoods or telling people what they need to believe to understanding how people are manipulated and misled online to begin with. It is a growing field of research that aims to help people resist persuasion by misinformation. Prebunking, or "attitudinal inoculation," is a way to teach people to spot and resist manipulative messages before they happen.  The crux of the approach is rooted in taking a step backwards and nipping the problem in the bud by deepening our understanding of it, instead of designing redressal mechanisms to tackle it after the fact. It has been proven effective in helping a wide range of people build resilience to misleading information.

Prebunking is a psychological strategy for countering the effect of misinformation with the goal of assisting individuals in identifying and resisting deceptive content, hence increasing resilience against future misinformation. Online manipulation is a complex issue, and multiple approaches are needed to curb its worst effects. Prebunking provides an opportunity to get ahead of online manipulation, providing a layer of protection before individuals encounter malicious content. Prebunking aids individuals in discerning and refuting misleading arguments, thus enabling them to resist a variety of online manipulations. 

Prebunking builds mental defenses for misinformation by providing warnings and counterarguments before people encounter malicious content. Inoculating people against false or misleading information is a powerful and effective method for building trust and understanding along with a personal capacity for discernment and fact-checking. Prebunking teaches people how to separate facts from myths by teaching them the importance of thinking in terms of ‘how you know what you know’ and consensus-building. Prebunking uses examples and case studies to explain the types and risks of misinformation so that individuals can apply these learnings to reject false claims and manipulation in the future as well. 

How Prebunking Helps Individuals Spot Manipulative Messages

Prebunking helps individuals identify manipulative messages by providing them with the necessary tools and knowledge to recognize common techniques used to spread misinformation. Successful prebunking strategies include;

1. Warnings;
2. Preemptive Refutation: It explains the narrative/technique and how particular information is manipulative in structure. The Inoculation treatment messages typically include 2-3 counterarguments and their refutations. An effective rebuttal provides the viewer with skills to fight any erroneous or misleading information they may encounter in the future.
3. Micro-dosing: A weakened or practical example of misinformation that is innocuous. 

All these alert individuals to potential manipulation attempts. Prebunking also offers weakened examples of misinformation, allowing individuals to practice identifying deceptive content. It activates mental defenses, preparing individuals to resist persuasion attempts. Misinformation can exploit cognitive biases: people tend to put a lot of faith in things they’ve heard repeatedly - a fact that malicious actors manipulate by flooding the Internet with their claims to help legitimise them by creating familiarity. The ‘prebunking’ technique helps to create resilience against misinformation and protects our minds from the harmful effects of misinformation. 

Prebunking essentially helps people control the information they consume by teaching them how to discern between accurate and deceptive content. It enables one to develop critical thinking skills, evaluate sources adequately and identify red flags. By incorporating these components and strategies, prebunking enhances the ability to spot manipulative messages, resist deceptive narratives, and make informed decisions when navigating the very dynamic and complex information landscape online.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

• Preventing and fighting misinformation necessitates joint efforts between different stakeholders. The government and policymakers should sponsor prebunking initiatives and information literacy programmes to counter misinformation and adopt systematic approaches. Regulatory frameworks should encourage accountability in the dissemination of online information on various platforms. Collaboration with educational institutions, technological companies and civil society organisations can assist in the implementation of prebunking techniques in a variety of areas.
• Higher educational institutions should support prebunking and media literacy and offer professional development opportunities for educators, and scholars by working with academics and professionals on the subject of misinformation by producing research studies on the grey areas and challenges associated with misinformation.
• Technological companies and social media platforms should improve algorithm transparency, create user-friendly tools and resources, and work with fact-checking organisations to incorporate fact-check labels and tools.
• Civil society organisations and NGOs should promote digital literacy campaigns to spread awareness on misinformation and teach prebunking strategies and critical information evaluation. Training programmes should be available to help people recognise and resist deceptive information using prebunking tactics. Advocacy efforts should support legislation or guidelines that support and encourage prebunking efforts and promote media literacy as a basic skill in the digital landscape. 
• Media outlets and journalists including print & social media should follow high journalistic standards and engage in fact-checking activities to ensure information accuracy before release. Collaboration with prebunking professionals, cyber security experts, researchers and advocacy analysts can result in instructional content and initiatives that promote media literacy, prebunking strategies and misinformation awareness.

Final Words

The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2024 identifies misinformation and disinformation as the top most significant risks for the next two years. Misinformation and disinformation are rampant in today’s digital-first reality, and the ever-growing popularity of social media is only going to see the challenges compound further. It is absolutely imperative for all netizens and stakeholders  to adopt proactive approaches to counter the growing problem of misinformation. Prebunking is a powerful problem-solving tool in this regard because it aims at ‘protection through prevention’ instead of limiting the strategy to harm reduction and redressal.  We can draw parallels with the concept of vaccination or inoculation, reducing the probability of a misinformation infection. Prebunking exposes us to a weakened form of misinformation and provides ways to identify it, reducing the chance false information takes root in our psyches.

The most compelling attribute of this approach is that the focus is not only on preventing damage but also creating widespread ownership and citizen participation in the problem-solving process. Every empowered individual creates an additional layer of protection against the scourge of misinformation, not only making safer choices for themselves but also lowering the risk of spreading false claims to others.  

References

• [1] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf
• [2] https://prebunking.withgoogle.com/docs/A_Practical_Guide_to_Prebunking_Misinformation.pdf
• [3] https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/17634/3565

‍

In 2023, PIB reported that up to 22% of young women in India are affected by Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). However, access to reliable information regarding the condition and its treatment remains a challenge. A study by the PGIMER Chandigarh conducted in 2021 revealed that approximately 37% of affected women rely on the internet as their primary source of information for PCOS. However, it can be difficult to distinguish credible medical advice from misleading or inaccurate information online since the internet and social media are rife with misinformation. The uptake of misinformation can significantly delay the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, jeopardizing health outcomes for all.

The PCOS Misinformation Ecosystem Online

PCOS is one of the most common disorders diagnosed in the female endocrine system, characterized by the swelling of ovaries and the formation of small cysts on their outer edges. This may lead to irregular menstruation, weight gain, hirsutism, possible infertility, poor mental health, and other symptoms. However, there is limited research on its causes, leaving most medical practitioners in India ill-equipped to manage the issue effectively and pushing women to seek alternate remedies from various sources.

This creates space for the proliferation of rumours, unverified cures and superstitions,  on social media, For example, content on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram may promote “miracle cures” like detox teas or restrictive diets, or viral myths claiming PCOS can be “cured” through extreme weight loss or herbal remedies. Such misinformation not only creates false hope for women but also delays treatment, or may worsen symptoms.

 How Tech Platforms Amplify Misinformation 

1. Engagement vs. Accuracy: Social media algorithms are designed to reward viral content, even if it’s misleading or incendiary since it generates advertisement revenue. Further, non-medical health influencers often dominate health conversations online and offer advice with promises of curing the condition.
2. Lack of Verification: Although platforms like YouTube try to provide verified health-related videos through content shelves, and label unverified content, the sheer volume of content online means that a significant chunk of content escapes the net of content moderation. 
3. Cultural Context: In India, discussions around women’s health, especially reproductive health, are stigmatized, making social media the go-to source for private, albeit unreliable, information. 

Way Forward

a. Regulating Health Content on Tech Platforms: Social media is a significant source of health information to millions who may otherwise lack access to affordable healthcare. Rather than rolling back content moderation practices as seen recently, platforms must dedicate more resources to identify and debunk misinformation, particularly health misinformation. 

b. Public Awareness Campaigns: Governments and NGOs should run nationwide campaigns in digital literacy to educate on women’s health issues in vernacular languages and utilize online platforms for culturally sensitive messaging to reach rural and semi-urban populations. This is vital for countering the stigma and lack of awareness which enables misinformation to proliferate. 

c. Empowering Healthcare Communication: Several studies suggest a widespread dissatisfaction among women in many parts of the world regarding the information and care they receive for PCOS.  This is what drives them to social media for answers. Training PCOS specialists and healthcare workers to provide accurate details and counter misinformation during patient consultations can improve the communication gaps between healthcare professionals and patients. 

d. Strengthening the Research for PCOS: The allocation of funding for research in PCOS is vital, especially in the face of its growing prevalence amongst Indian women. Academic and healthcare institutions must collaborate to produce culturally relevant, evidence-based interventions for PCOS. Information regarding this must be made available online since the internet is most often a primary source of information. An improvement in the research will inform improved communication, which will help reduce the trust deficit between women and healthcare professionals when it comes to women’s health concerns.

Conclusion 

In India, the PCOS misinformation ecosystem is shaped by a mix of local and global factors such as health communication failures, cultural stigma, and tech platform design prioritizing engagement over accuracy. With millions of women turning to the internet for guidance regarding their conditions, they are increasingly vulnerable to unverified claims and pseudoscientific remedies which can lead to delayed diagnoses, ineffective treatments, and worsened health outcomes. The rising number of PCOS cases in the country warrants the bridging of health research and communications gaps so that women can be empowered with accurate, actionable information to make the best decisions regarding their health and well-being. 

Sources

• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1893279#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20most%20prevailing%20female%20endocrine,neuroendocrine%20system%2C%20sedentary%20lifestyle%2C%20diet%2C%20and%20obesity. 
• https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/india-unprepared-pcos-crisis?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgz2p0999yo ‍
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9092874/