भारतीय संदर्भ में, फर्जी समाचार और दुष्प्रचार किस प्रकार आंतरिक सुरक्षा और सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था के लिये खतरा पैदा करते हैं, इसका वर्णन कीजिये। इस संदर्भ में, सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी (मध्यस्थ दिशानिर्देश और डिजिटल मीडिया आचार संहिता) नियम-2021 के संबंध में किये गये संशोधनों की प्रमुख विशेषताओं पर चर्चा कीजिए।
Read this question in English
Explain how fake news and disinformation pose threat to Internal Security and Public Order in Indian context ? In this regard, discuss salient features of amendments in respect of Information Technology (Intermediatory Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
🧭 How to think about this question · directive: “explain / discuss”
Decode the demand
- Two directives, two parts: 'explain how' fake news and disinformation threaten internal security and public order; 'discuss salient features' of the amendments to the IT Rules, 2021. One heading each, neither optional.
- The issue in one line: a rumour reaches the crowd before the correction does, so the State regulates intermediaries, and every amendment is tested against Article 19.
- Must answer: the mechanisms of harm (mob, communal, hostile state, deepfake, trust); the key feature of each amendment year by year; the constitutional limit set by the courts.
- The trap: writing 'social media is dangerous' in general terms, or listing the 2021 Rules themselves instead of the amendments, or leaving out the courts' pushback.
Think in a structure
- Open with the speed gap between rumour and correction, then name the Rules and Article 19 in one line.
- Threats in dimensions: one point per mechanism, each carrying a reason; a real court order or government action as the sub-point.
- Amendments as a timeline, then one point per year with its defining feature; close the section with the Shreya Singhal test as the yardstick.
- End positively: three things a district administrator can do, then Article 19(2) as the anchor that holds order and liberty together.
Facts checked at source (6)· open
- The February 2026 amendment requires platforms to label permissible AI-generated content and attach traceable metadata.PIB — MeitY reply in Lok Sabha (25 March 2026) ↗“Platforms are also required to ensure clear labelling and traceable metadata for permissible AI-generated content, so that users can easily identify synthetically generated material and prevent deception or misuse”
- Unlawful content must now be removed within three hours of a court order or a reasoned government intimation.PIB — MeitY reply in Lok Sabha (25 March 2026) ↗“Social media platforms and other intermediaries are required to remove unlawful content within three hours of the receipt of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or a reasoned intimation by the Appropriate Government or its agency”
- In Shreya Singhal (2015) the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act on substantive grounds.Supreme Court — Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), via Indian Kanoon ↗“Having struck down Section 66A on substantive grounds, we need not decide the procedural”
- The Court noted that Section 69A, unlike 66A, is tied to subject matters listed in Article 19(2).Supreme Court — Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), via Indian Kanoon ↗“it provided for some of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) in Section 69A . We would be doing complete violence to the language of Section 66A if we were to read into it”
- In September 2024 the Bombay High Court declared the 2023 IT Rules amendment creating Fact Check Units unconstitutional and struck it down (LiveLaw report).LiveLaw (legal news) — Bombay High Court strikes down 2023 amendment to IT Rules on Fact Check Units ↗“the Bombay High Court division bench today declared amendment to the IT Rules, 2021, "unconstitutional" and struck down the said amendment, which allowed the Central government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs)”
- In June 2020 the Government blocked 59 mobile apps under Section 69A of the IT Act as prejudicial to sovereignty, integrity, security and public order.PIB — Government Bans 59 mobile apps (29 June 2020) ↗“has decided to block 59 apps”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2026, GS Paper III — paper ↗. Guidance: Minimalist IAS, checked 8 Nov 2026 (how we verify). ·
Model answer· 373words · Minimalist IAS
A rumour reaches the crowd before the police do: forwarded messages have triggered lynchings, riots and panic within hours. The IT Rules, 2021, amended four times since, are the State's response, tested each time against Article 19.
How fake news and disinformation threaten internal security and public order
- Mob violence: child-lifting rumours on messaging apps have turned crowds into lynch mobs before anyone could verify.
- Communal incitement: doctored videos and old clips recast as fresh attacks turn local disputes into riots.
- Hostile propaganda: adversary states and terror groups push narratives during conflicts to demoralise, recruit and radicalise.
- June 2020: 59 apps blocked under Section 69A as prejudicial to sovereignty, security and public order.
- Deepfakes: synthetic voices of leaders or officials can spread false orders or fake surrenders.
- Eroded trust: election misinformation and false claims against courts, agencies and vaccines weaken the consent on which order rests.
Salient features of the amendments to the IT Rules, 2021
- 2022: Grievance Appellate Committees
- 2023: online gaming, Fact Check Unit
- 2025: senior-officer takedowns
- 2026: AI labels, three-hour removal
- 2022, user remedy: Grievance Appellate Committees hear appeals against platform decisions; stronger due-diligence duties on intermediaries.
- 2023, fact-checking: online gaming rules and a government Fact Check Unit for Central matters.
- September 2024: Bombay High Court struck the FCU amendment down as unconstitutional.
- 2025, safeguards: Rule 3(1)(d) notices only from Joint Secretary or DIG rank, stating the legal basis, reviewed monthly by a Secretary.
- 2026, synthetic content: 'synthetically generated information' defined; mandatory labels and traceable metadata on permissible AI content.
- 2026, speed: unlawful content removed within three hours of a court order or reasoned government intimation.
- Constitutional test: Shreya Singhal (2015) struck down vague Section 66A but upheld Section 69A because it tracks Article 19(2) grounds.
What a district administrator can do
- Rumour-response cell: police monitoring with pre-cleared counter-messages within the hour, as the Poonawalla nodal-officer mandate envisages.
- Proportionate shutdowns: internet suspension only as a reasoned, time-bound last resort, per Anuradha Bhasin (2020).
- Media literacy: school and panchayat sessions on spotting forwards and deepfakes, with verified local handles for corrections.
Article 19(2) allows restrictions for public order and security only when reasonable; rules that are fast, narrow and reviewable, as Shreya Singhal demands, beat the rumour without silencing the citizen.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 8 Nov 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
