#FactCheck: Fake Claim on Delhi Authority Culling Dogs After Supreme Court Stray Dog Ban Directive 11 Aug 2025

Introduction

‍

“an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not ‍, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force”

‍

Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals itself through its own gaps. The most recent notification from MeitY, G.S.R. 775(E) dated October 22, 2025, is an illustration of that self-correction. On November 15, 2025, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, will come into effect. They accomplish two crucial things: they restrict who can use "actual knowledge” to initiate takedown and require senior-level scrutiny of those directives. By doing this, they maintain genuine security requirements while guiding India’s content governance system towards more transparent due process. 

‍

When Regulation Learns Restraint

‍

To better understand the jurisprudence of revision, one must need to understand that Regulation, in its truest form, must know when to pause. The 2025 amendment marks that rare moment when the government chooses precision over power, when regulation learns restraint. The amendment revises Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules. Social media sites, hosting companies, and other digital intermediaries are still required to take action within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge” that a piece of content is illegal (e.g. poses a threat to public order, sovereignty, decency, or morality). However, “actual knowledge” now only occurs in the following situations: 

(i) a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or

(ii) a reasoned written intimation from a duly authorised government officer not below Joint Secretary rank (or equivalent)

‍

The authorised authority in matters involving the police “must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)”. This creates a well defined, senior-accountable channel in place of a diffuse trigger. 

There are two more new structural guardrails. The Rules first establish a monthly assessment of all takedown notifications by a Secretary-level officer of the relevant government to test necessity, proportionality, and compliance with India’s safe harbour provision under Section 79(3) of the IT Act. Second, in order for platforms to act precisely rather than in an expansive manner, takedown requests must be accompanied by legal justification, a description of the illegal act, and precise URLs or identifiers. The cumulative result of these guardrails is that each removal has a proportionality check and a paper trail. 

‍

Due Process as the Law’s Conscience 

‍

Indian jurisprudence has been debating what constitutes “actual knowledge” for over a decade. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) connected an intermediary’s removal obligation to notifications from official channels or court orders rather than vague notice. But over time, that line became hazy due to enforcement practices and some court rulings, raising concerns about over-removal and safe-harbour loss under Section 79(3). Even while more recent decisions questioned the “reasonable efforts” of intermediaries, the 2025 amendment institutionally pays homage to Shreya Singhal’s ethos by refocusing “actual knowledge” on formal reviewable communications from senior state actors or judges. 

The amendment also introduces an internal constitutionalism to executive orders by mandating monthly audits at the Secretary level. The state is required to re-justify its own orders on a rolling basis, evaluating them against proportionality and necessity, which are criteria that Indian courts are increasingly requesting for speech restrictions. Clearer triggers, better logs, and less vague “please remove” communications that previously left compliance teams in legal limbo are the results for intermediaries.

‍

The Court’s Echo in the Amendment

‍

The essence of this amendment is echoed in Karnataka High Court’s Ruling on Sahyog Portal, a government portal used to coordinate takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), was constitutional. The HC rejected X’s (formerly Twitter’s) appeal contesting the legitimacy of the portal in September. The business had claimed that by giving nodal officers the authority to issue takedown orders without court review, the portal permitted arbitrary content removals. The court disagreed, holding that the officers’ acts were in accordance with Section 79 (3)(b) and that they were “not dropping from the air but emanating from statutes.” The amendment turns compliance into conscience by conforming to the Sahyog Portal verdict, reiterating that due process is the moral grammar of governance rather than just a formality. 

‍

Conclusion: The Necessary Restlessness of Law 

‍

Law cannot afford stillness; it survives through self doubt and reinvention. The 2025 amendment, too, is not a destination, it’s a pause before the next question, a reminder that justice breathes through revision. As befits a constitutional democracy, India’s path to content governance has been combative and iterative. The next rule making cycle has been sharpened by the stays split judgments, and strikes down that have resulted from strategic litigation centred on the IT Rules, safe harbour, government fact-checking, and blocking orders. Lessons learnt are reflected in the 2025 amendment: review triumphs over opacity; specificity triumphs over vagueness; and due process triumphs over discretion. A digital republic balances freedom and force in this way. 

‍

Sources

• https://pressnews.in/law-and-justice/government-notifies-amendments-to-it-rules-2025-strengthening-intermediary-obligations/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/90dedea70a3fdfe6d58efb55b95b4109.pdf 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2181719 
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/x-relies-on-shreya-singhal-in-arbitrary-content-blocking-case-in-karnataka-hc/ 
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/10/223-content-takedown-rules-online-platforms-36-hr-deadline-officer-rank/#:~:text=It%20specifies%20that%20government%20officers,Deputy%20Inspector%20General%20of%20Police%E2%80%9D.

‍

‍

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍

Introduction

THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2022 Released for Public Consultation on November 18, 2022THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2023Tabled at LokSabha on August 03. 2023Personal data may be processed only for a lawful purpose for which an individual has given consent.  Consent may be deemed in certain cases.The 2023 bill imposes reasonable obligations on data fiduciaries and data processors to safeguard digital personal data.There is a Data Protection Board under the 2022 bill to deal with the non-compliance of the Act.Under the 2023 bill, there is the Establishment of a new Data Protection Board which will ensure compliance, remedies and penalties.

Under the new bill, the Board has been entrusted with the power of a civil court, such as the power to take cognisance in response to personal data breaches, investigate complaints,  imposing penalties. Additionally, the Board can issue directions to ensure compliance with the act.The 2022 Bill grants certain rights to individuals, such as the right to obtain information, seek correction and erasure, and grievance redressal.The 2023 bill also grants More Rights to Individuals and establishes a balance between user protection and growing innovations. The bill creates a transparent and accountable data governance framework by giving more rights to individuals. In the 2023 bill, there is an Incorporation of Business-friendly provisions by removing criminal penalties for non-compliance and facilitating international data transfers.  

‍The new 2023 bill balances out fundamental privacy rights and puts reasonable limitations on those rights.Under the 2022 bill, Personal data can be processed for a lawful purpose for which an individual has given his consent.  And there was a concept of deemed consent.The new data protection board will carefully examine the instance of non-compliance by imposing penalties on non-compiler.The bill does not provide any express clarity in regards to compensation to be granted to the Data Principal in case of a Data Breach.Under 2023 Deemed consent is there in its new form as ‘Legitimate Users’.The 2022 bill allowed the transfer of personal data to locations notified by the government.There is an introduction of the negative list, which restricts cross-data transfer.