Question 1

Any local police inspector can order a social media platform to remove a post.

Accepted Answer

Under the 2025 Rules, only a police officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) or above can issue a binding takedown order.

Question 2

The platform is legally required to inform you if the government orders your post to be removed.

Accepted Answer

There is no legal obligation under these rules for the government or the intermediary to notify the user whose content is blocked.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025: 1. It permits any gazetted officer of a State Government to issue a content takedown directive to a social media intermediary. 2. It mandates the intermediary to notify the user before removing their content based on a government directive. 3. It introduces a periodic monthly review of all takedown intimations by an officer not below the rank of Secretary. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

(a) Only one — Statement 1 is incorrect because the issuing authority must be at least a Joint Secretary or a police DIG, not just any gazetted officer. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 2025 rules do not mandate user notification; the process remains opaque to the content creator. Statement 3 is correct as the rules introduce a mandatory monthly review by a Secretary-level officer.

Question 4

Match the legal provisions/judgments in List I with their core principle regarding digital rights in List II: List I (A. Section 79 of IT Act, B. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, C. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, D. Rule 3(1)(d) of IT Rules 2021 as amended in 2025) List II (1. Restrictions on internet access must be proportionate and published, 2. Safe harbour protection for internet intermediaries, 3. Actual knowledge requires a court or government order, 4. Reasoned intimations for content takedown)

Accepted Answer

(a) A-2, B-3, C-1, D-4 — Section 79 of the IT Act provides safe harbour (A-2). Shreya Singhal established the 'actual knowledge' threshold (B-3). Anuradha Bhasin mandated that internet restrictions must pass the test of proportionality and be publicly available (C-1). Rule 3(1)(d) as amended in 2025 governs the process of reasoned intimations for takedowns (D-4).

Question 5

Assertion (A): The IT Amendment Rules 2025 require content takedown directives to explicitly specify the exact URL of the unlawful information. Reason (R): The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ruled that intermediaries are obligated to proactively monitor and filter user content to maintain safe harbour protections. Select the correct answer from the codes given below:

Accepted Answer

(c) A is true but R is false. — Assertion (A) is true as the 2025 amendment requires 'reasoned intimations' specifying exact URLs to prevent overbroad censorship. Reason (R) is false because the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal specifically held that intermediaries CANNOT be forced to proactively monitor user content, which is why the burden is on the government to provide the exact URL.

MeitY Notifies IT Intermediary Amendment Rules 2025

Prime Minister's State Visit to Nigeria