MeitY secretary defends social media regulation, says trusted media will stay relevant

India’s technology ministry has reiterated that the government’s oversight of social media and digital intermediaries remains firmly grounded in constitutional safeguards. Speaking at the DNPA Conclave 2026, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Secretary S Krishnan said that India’s regulatory approach in social media is guided by clearly defined legal boundaries that courts have repeatedly upheld.

Krishnan said the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. “Those grounds are very clear,” he noted, adding that courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s position when such restrictions are challenged.

He highlighted Section 69A of the IT Act as a key regulatory tool. According to him, the provision addresses a subset of restrictions permitted under Article 19(2), including concerns related to public order, national security, defence of India and the security of the state. Other categories such as defamatory and obscene content are handled through separate legal provisions but remain part of the broader regulatory framework.

“We are well within that framework of law,” Krishnan said, stressing that the ministry is careful to operate strictly within constitutional limits. He added that the legal process functions through “two limbs” via Sections 69A and 79, and that the government is clear about when and how each provision is applied.

Krishnan emphasised that any platform operating in India cannot claim the right to host content that violates constitutionally valid restrictions. “If you want to operate in India, you have to comply with Indian law,” he said, rejecting suggestions that the ministry’s expectations go beyond what the Constitution permits.

On repeated legal challenges to content takedowns and platform regulation, Krishnan maintained that courts have consistently upheld the government’s stance, describing the measures as lawful restrictions.

Expectations from digital news publishers
When asked about expectations from digital news publishers in an era shaped by algorithmic amplification, Krishnan’s response was direct. “As a civil servant and as a representative of government, the only ask I will have is follow the law,” he said. “Function within the four walls of the law.”

He added that credibility and public trust ultimately rest with publishers and audiences. If media organisations retain trust, he argued, their relevance will endure. If not, audiences will shift to other forms of content.

Krishnan suggested that media organisations should introspect on credibility gaps rather than look to the government for answers on audience trust. “Whether you are credible or not credible is something that people have to judge. It’s not for us to judge,” he said.

He also argued that curated and authenticated content serves a deeper societal function, especially in a democracy. Trusted publishers, he said, carry the responsibility of verification, and such work cannot survive through a race to the bottom in compensation. Professional journalism, he suggested, requires sustainable economic models.

On deeper government-industry collaboration in 2026, Krishnan said MeitY primarily deals with technology and remains agnostic to the content layered on top of it. He pointed to significant opportunities in leveraging technology more effectively and educating citizens about its potential at a time when digital tools are rapidly reshaping society.

“This is a society-wide issue,” he said, noting that technology affects everyone from students to the elderly. Rather than attempting to curb technologies because they amplify certain messages, he suggested stakeholders should focus on producing the “right kind of content.”

“If you create the right kind of content, technology will help you amplify the right kind of message,” he said.

Krishnan acknowledged that the economics of digital media have shifted, particularly as advertising revenues increasingly flow through intermediary platforms. He said discussions around fair compensation between platforms and publishers should evolve through structured negotiation rather than blanket mandates. While flexibility is necessary, he indicated that frameworks may need defined boundaries, including minimum and maximum thresholds, to ensure quality journalism is not undermined.

On AI and copyright, Krishnan noted that while news content shares similarities with other copyrighted creative works, it also serves an immediate societal function that distinguishes it from longer-form artistic content such as novels or films. News, he said, may be more ephemeral in the short term but retains archival and democratic value over time, suggesting regulatory approaches may need to reflect this distinction.

In a closing remark aimed at legacy publishers navigating the AI era, Krishnan observed that traditional newsroom cycles are no longer defined by a single daily deadline. “You just had one deadline and then you could put the paper to bed. You can’t do it anymore,” he said, signalling the need for structural adaptation in a real-time, AI-driven media environment.

He further noted that issues involving trusted publishers, revenue-sharing, AI use and copyright cut across multiple ministries, and that while responsibilities may differ within government, the urgency of the matter calls for coordinated attention. His remarks come amid continuing debate over platform accountability, algorithmic amplification and the balance between free expression and lawful restriction in India’s evolving digital ecosystem.