--- layout: default title: "New Rules to Ensure Due Diligence: IT Dept" description: "A Times of India report on the Indian government's defence of new IT intermediary rules requiring due diligence from platforms like Google and Facebook." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2011-05-11 source: "The Times of India" permalink: /media/new-rules-to-ensure-due-diligence-it-dept-toi/ created: 2026-04-23 --- **New Rules to Ensure Due Diligence: IT Dept** is a *The Times of India* article published on 11 May 2011. The report covers the Indian government's response to criticism of new IT intermediary rules and includes remarks by [Sunil Abraham](/sunil/), then Executive Director of the [Centre for Internet and Society](/cis/) (CIS). ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) ## Article Details
📰 Published in:
The Times of India
📅 Date:
11 May 2011
📄 Type:
News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Not available online
## Full Text

Facing widespread criticism over new IT rules that put certain amount of liability on intermediaries like Google and Facebook for user-generated content, the government clarified that the rules are simply seeking "due diligence" on the part of websites and web hosts.

The new rules were notified on April 11. Activists and Internet companies say that the rules are archaic and loosely worded and may lead to harassment of web users and website owners. The Times of India was first to report on the issue on April 27.

The ministry of information and technology said, "The terms specified in the rules are in accordance with the terms used by most of the intermediaries as part of their existing practices, policies and terms of service which they have published on their website."

It also clarified the "department of telecommunication has reiterated that there is no intention of the government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these rules".

The government has claimed that before it made the rules final, it had sought public comments over the draft. "None of the industry associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation which is now being cited in some section of media," it claimed.

However, sources told TOI that companies like Google had objected to loose wordings of the documents and asked government not to put any liability on intermediary for user-generated content on the web. "We too approached the government with our concerns. For our communication, we never received any acknowledgment," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

"Given the fact that final rules are more or less similar to the draft rules, I can say that nobody in the government took into account the objections raised by CIS and many other organizations," he added.

Google had earlier told TOI that new rules would adversely affect businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper. "We believe that a free and open Internet is essential for the growth of digital economy and safeguarding freedom of expression. If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," a Google spokesperson said.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The rules at the centre of this report were the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, notified under the IT Act, 2000. They placed compliance obligations on intermediaries, including social media platforms, search engines, and web hosts, requiring them to remove content flagged as objectionable within 36 hours and to preserve user data for investigative purposes. Civil society organisations and technology companies raised concerns that the rules were vaguely worded, making it difficult to determine what content warranted removal. Critics warned this ambiguity could prompt platforms to over-remove content to avoid liability, chilling free expression online. The CIS, co-founded by Sunil Abraham in 2008, was among the organisations that had submitted formal objections during the public consultation phase. The government's claim that no stakeholder had raised concerns was contested by Abraham, who stated that objections submitted by CIS and others had not been acknowledged.