Valero Energy is a leading technology company focused on innovation and creating and monetizing its…
New Proposed Media Labelling Obligations Laid Down by MeitY.
Introduction
A draft amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the “Intermediary Rules”) was released in October 2025 by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) with the main goal of regulating artificial intelligence (AI) content, algorithmic, and deepfake content.
In recent times with the widespread use of AI technology to create content, also known to online users as ‘AI Slop Content’, has led to the pertinent question of how to regulate such content and how to differentiate it from non-AI content. Deepfake technology immediately comes to mind when thinking about the recent effect of AI on people’s perception of reality. Many politicians like Amit Shah have been embroiled in scandals due to deepfakes and fabricated videos.
Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), read with Section 79, grants the rule-making authority for the amendment. The amendment’s goal is to guarantee that users are able to tell between real and AI-generated content. This is consistent with global initiatives to promote transparency in synthetic media.
The meaning of “Synthetically Generated Information” (SGI) is ‘any information that is artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered using a computer resource, in a manner that such information reasonably appears to be authentic or true’. The explanatory note clarifies that the objective is to address deepfakes, AI-driven misinformation, impersonation and non-consensual synthetic media. This type of media especially harms women and other vulnerable populations. Recently, Taylor Swift was a victim of sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake images.
However, because the definition concentrates on the method of creation and not the effect it has per se, it covers both harmful and neutral AI-processed/ generated content. This includes posts that simply use AI for image enhancement. This leads to an increase in responsibilities on the intermediaries’ end with regard to due diligence.
Under Rule 3 of the Intermediary Rules, the draft adds a new sub-rule (3) that makes any intermediary providing computer resources that facilitate the creation of synthetic media/ information to make sure that such information is labelled or embedded with a permanent and unique metadata tag. This also includes synthetic information that is AI-modified or altered.
Intermediaries must also make sure that the label, metadata, or identifier is prominently displayed or audible. It should take up a minimum of 10% of the surface area in the case of visual media. With respect to audio content, the initial 10% of its duration should contain a label or identifier to ensure that the content can be identified as synthetically generated. Once such labels are embedded, the intermediary is not allowed to make any modification or removal.
Even before these rules were unveiled to the public, some social media platforms, like Instagram, had features that allowed users to see if posts used AI through a label that says ‘AI Info’. However, not all posts that were AI-generated have this label, and some users’ posts can wrongly be labelled as well. X, formerly Twitter, also has its own mechanism whereby users can point out if a post is AI-generated through Community Notes. Community Notes is a feature on X by which users can add context, debunk misinformation, or point out AI-generated posts to an already existing post. However, there is no official mechanism governing Community Notes, and they are user-generated; thus, no one is truly accountable.
Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) now have Additional Responsibilities.
A new Rule 4(1A) is introduced under the draft amendment, placing additional requirements on SSMIs to
Ensure that Users disclose whether or not the material they have uploaded has information that has been AI-generated or modified.
The SSMI must confirm the accuracy of such declarations. They must implement appropriate measures, such as automated tools or other mechanisms.
If the SSMI recognises that the content is synthetically generated, it must label or publicly disclose this information before it is posted.
An SSMI’s failure to comply with these obligations may result in the loss of safe-harbour protection under Section 79(1) of the IT Act.
Exceptions and Protections offered to SSMIs-
The draft proposes a new provision to Rule 3(1)(b) of the Intermediary Rules that grants legal protection to intermediaries which, to the best of their ability, remove or disable access to synthetically generated content. This will be based on user grievances. This falls under the exemption laid down in Section 79(2). However, the SSMI must have done all due diligence and not be found negligent of Rule 4(1A).
Implementation and Operational Concerns
The draft of the amendment gives rise to several questions about its interpretation and real-life implications. The broad definition of synthetically generated information includes artificially generated content that is benign in nature. Since the new rules solely focus on AI as a source of creation and not on the nature of what is created. Thus, it does implicate all AI-generated content, no matter how harmless it may be.
The phrase “reasonable and appropriate technical measures” is not clarified in the draft. These vague directions are meaningless. It puts the intermediaries in a difficult spot because if they do not comply as per the draft, they may be in danger of having their safe harbour removed and liable to a myriad of lawsuits. If the technical measures are not defined and no guidelines are given, it will lead to subjective implementation of the draft, and inconsistencies will arise.
SSMIs will have to themselves have to balance technical measures and users’ freedom. This may lead to many SSMIs prioritising users over the actual law and creating liberal and easy-to-get-by measures just to please users.
Additionally, the obligation to put a label on at least 10% of the visual surface or the first 10% of the audio duration can lead to a decrease in the quality of content that gets uploaded, as it can be distracting or simply aesthetically displeasing. People who especially create content that is meant to be for aesthetic purposes, like advertisements or promotional material, will find it difficult to create content keeping in mind these restrictions and their own creative ambitions.
Thus, it is not an understatement to say that these new proposed guidelines have major consequences for digital intermediaries, content creators and everyday people who use these SSMIs.
These guidelines emphasise accountability, digital safety and transparency, but also fall short of realising that what users want is a seamless digital experience. While the labels and metadata do help make users aware of the use of AI in the production of digital content, it also obstruct their posts and may ruin the quality of a post.
But all change can be jarring at first. The 2021 Rules had expanded the obligations of intermediaries, introduced the types frameworks for digital media- OTT, news and social media, introduced the grievance redressal mechanism, and defined “significant social media intermediaries.” The proposed amendment is the next step in this evolution to codify our digital landscape and make sure transparency is prioritised.
Conclusion
The proposed amendment to the Intermediary Rules by MeitY reflects a much-needed evolution in the way we regulate the digital ecosystem in India.
It defines Synthetically Generated Information, lays down labelling or metadata embedding requirements, imposes additional obligations on significant social media intermediaries, it lays down the repercussions that platforms will face if the rules are not followed through with under Section 79 (1) of the IT Act, but also states the exceptions to these consequences.
However, there are still some concerns, such as the wide definition of SGI, the absence of clearly defined technical standards, how it will impact users’ enjoyment of SSMIs and possible issues with respect to freedom of speech. All of these make the issues of implementation and compliance very challenging.
Since the draft is still at the consultation stage, a feedback window is open until the beginning of November 2025. Stakeholders, in this case, who would be intermediaries, AI developers, content creators, and users, will take part in the rule-making process and offer a fresh perspective. Hopefully will change the parts of the rules that need to be changed, so that when they are implemented in real life, they can operate smoothly and offer a better, more transparent experience to users.
This regulatory change represents the world’s ever-evolving digital landscape and India’s ability to keep up with the times with respect to digital governance. This is especially pertinent regarding the future of AI-generated content. The effectiveness of these rules will largely be determined by the real-life implementation of the rules, intermediaries’ compliance, and the extent to which a balance between innovation, users’ input and freedom of speech is achieved.
Author: Dhwani Sharma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD.
Citations / References
- “MeitY Proposes New Media Labelling obligations under Intermediary Rules”, AZB & Partners – Aprajita Rana & Associates, Oct 29 2025. Available at: https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/meity-proposes-new-media-labelling-obligations-under-intermediary-rules/
- “2025 IT Rules Amendment: Regulating Synthetically Generated Information in India’s AI and privacy landscape”, SSR & Associates, Oct 27 2025.
- Explanatory Note to the Draft Amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in relation to synthetically generated information – MeitY, Oct 22 2025.
https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/8e40cdd134cd92dd783a37556428c370.pdf
- “Decoding the proposed IT Amendment Rules, 2025”, TheLeaflet, Oct 24 2025.
https://theleaflet.in/digital-rights/law-and-technology/decoding-the-proposed-it-
amendment-rules-2025
- “Proposed Rules for AI-Generated Content Amid Deepfake Concerns: Impact on Platforms and User Experience”, Nishith Desai Associates, Oct 31 2025.
https://nishithdesai.com/default.aspx?id=15467&utm_
- “Proposed amendments to the IT Intermediary Rules: Battling synthetically generated information”, Khaitan & Co., Oct 27 2025.
https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leadership/Proposed-amendments-to-the-IT-Intermediary-Rules
- Press Information Bureau, “Government notifies amendments to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 to enhance transparency, accountability and safeguards”, 23 Oct 2025.
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2181719&utm_
Related Posts
