wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Exclusive: What FICCI said to MEITY on Intermediary Rules

You’re reading it here first: The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) wrote a letter to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) requesting an extension of time in implementing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. MediaNama has read a copy of the undated letter by FICCI Secretary General Dilip Chenoy to MEITY Secretary Ajay Prakash Sawhney. The Rules, notified in February, put social media companies and OTT streaming services on a tight leash, with strict content takedown provisions for companies like Facebook and Twitter. We have reached out to FICCI and Chenoy for comment.

Here’s what FICCI requested from the government in the letter:

  1. Extension of one year, more time to takedown: The industry body requested an extension of time limit for compliance of one year, a significant demand considering that the industry has been given hardly a couple months to come into total compliance. FICCI cited the complexity of building systems to comply quickly as a justification for the timeframe. The industry body also said that 72 hours was too little time to comply with takedown requests, and requested more time for this.
  2. Limit to scope of IT Act: The letter goes on to say that intermediary liability protections under the Shreya Singhal judgement need to be respected, and observes that procedural safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act are not in the Rules. It also said that granting blocking powers to an Inter-Departmental Committee by the government to oversee this regulation was not consistent with the IT Act and jurisprudence thereof. It recommended the creation of Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) for compliance.
  3. Criminal liability: The letter says that the potential for criminal liability created by the Rules’s tight time limits and their requirement to hire a chief compliance officer (for significant social media intermediaries) puts companies and their employees at risk of criminal liability. Employees do not have criminal liabilities for the actions of their companies, the letter asserted. The letter also asked that the government clarify that it will not pursue parallel criminal proceedings while a matter is being examined under the Rules.
  4. Only central govt should have authority: The letter warned against providing state governments with blocking authority under the IT Rules, arguing it would overburden companies by subjecting them to multiple authorities. Only the central government should have that power, the letter argued.
  5. SRBs should be able to draft their own code of practices: The IT Rules say that the government will soon put out codes of practice for self-regulatory bodies required to be formed. These codes of practice should be allowed to be formulated by the industry itself, the letter argued.
  6. Govt can deal with unresolved complaints: The letter implicitly okays the government’s three-tier complaints system, but with the caveat that any complaints referred to the government’s inter-departmental committee should first be dealt with the company in question, and then its self-regulatory body; and only after these recourses are exhausted should the complaint be addressed by the government.

The letter by FICCI — which never put out a press release outlining its stance on the Rules — is a revealing indicator of how digital companies affected by the subordinate legislation are reacting to the new regulations they are subject to. None of the companies involved has explicitly supported or opposed the Rules, preferring to discuss compliance and concerns directly with the government. FICCI requested a meeting with MEITY to discuss the concerns it outlined in the letter.

Also read

Written By

I cover the digital content ecosystem and telecom for MediaNama.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Releasing the policy is akin to putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'.


The industry's growth is being weighed down by taxation and legal uncertainty.


Due to the scale of regulatory and technical challenges, transparency reporting under the IT Rules has gotten off to a rocky start.


Here are possible reasons why Indians are not generating significant IAP revenues despite our download share crossing 30%.


This article addresses the legal and practical ambiguities in understanding the complex crypto ecosystem in India.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ