<p>New Delhi: The government has proposed tightening of IT Rules, this time focusing specifically on how AI-generated content is identified online by users.</p><p>Here is a quick look at what the new proposal entails, why it matters, and concerns being raised by digital rights groups on the flurry of IT Rules amendments that are currently under consideration.</p>.<p>Currently, the IT Rules require "prominent visibility" of labels/markers on AI content.</p><p>The draft amendments, circulated by the Ministry of Electronics and IT (Meity) on Tuesday for public comments, seek to replace "prominent visibility" wording with "continuous and clearly visible display for labels" throughout the full duration on-screen.</p><p>Put simply, this means a watermark or label identifying the content as AI-generated cannot just appear at the beginning or end of a video; it must remain on the screen for the entire duration of the visual display.</p><p>So, no more 'now-you-see-it, now-you-don't' displays. MeitY wants to ensure that if a video is made by an AI, you, the viewer, know it from the first second to the very last.</p>.<p>The primary driver is the growing misuse of Artificial Intelligence. Meity believes that seemingly realistic but fake videos circulating online lead to misinformation and mislead users, and therefore, such content generated through AI tools needs to be marked/identified upfront.</p><p>By mandating a permanent label, the government wants to ensure that even if a viewer watches a video halfway or tunes in at any point of the clip, they are immediately aware that the content is synthetic.</p><p>Meity officials say the compliance with the previous mandate of "prominent visibility" label was not satisfactory.</p><p>Imagine a 5-minute AI-generated video that only displays a label for the first 5 seconds. If you join the video at the two-minute mark, you’ve missed the AI marker and might take it to be true. Officials argue an `always-on' marker is more practical. And transparent.</p><p>Social Media Intermediaries, platforms like X, YouTube, and Meta, must ensure these labels are maintained. Companies creating AI generation tools must build in these persistent labelling mechanisms, and the requirement applies to users of social media and AI tools.</p>.<p>The proposed "continuous label" mandate is part of a larger set of IT Rules amendments being mulled. Other proposed provisions that have emerged as major flashpoints include: Mandatory compliance of social media platforms with IT Ministry-issued advisories. The government proposes to make it legally binding for platforms to follow clarifications, advisories, SOPs and guidelines.</p><p>Influencer regulations: The 'news and current affairs content' posted by non-publisher users (read influencers and content creators) may soon have to comply with the same legal framework as registered digital news portals.</p>.<p>Digital advocacy groups, such as the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), have raised several red flags: Consultation Fatigue: The IFF argues that the government keeps adding new changes while an existing consultation is already underway, making it difficult for the public to provide structured feedback.</p><p>Ad-hoc Policy Making: Critics argue that the rules are being changed frequently without a long-term, stable roadmap.</p><p>Claims of legal overreach: IFF recently expressed concerns regarding the proposal to mandate compliance with "advisories", saying it "creates a sweeping power for Meity to issue binding instruments, which are not anchored in law".</p><p>The practical effect of the change would be a perpetual compliance threat for intermediaries, it said. Overall, IFF warned that the changes could significantly expand executive power over online speech.</p>.<p>The government has extended the deadline for stakeholders (platforms, civil society, and the public) to submit their feedback on these proposals to May 7, 2026. </p><p>MeitY has stated that the feedback will be held in a fiduciary capacity, meaning the identities of those providing comments will not be disclosed, to encourage free and honest opinion. Following the consultation, the government will take a view on the final version of the amended IT Rules.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The government has proposed tightening of IT Rules, this time focusing specifically on how AI-generated content is identified online by users.</p><p>Here is a quick look at what the new proposal entails, why it matters, and concerns being raised by digital rights groups on the flurry of IT Rules amendments that are currently under consideration.</p>.<p>Currently, the IT Rules require "prominent visibility" of labels/markers on AI content.</p><p>The draft amendments, circulated by the Ministry of Electronics and IT (Meity) on Tuesday for public comments, seek to replace "prominent visibility" wording with "continuous and clearly visible display for labels" throughout the full duration on-screen.</p><p>Put simply, this means a watermark or label identifying the content as AI-generated cannot just appear at the beginning or end of a video; it must remain on the screen for the entire duration of the visual display.</p><p>So, no more 'now-you-see-it, now-you-don't' displays. MeitY wants to ensure that if a video is made by an AI, you, the viewer, know it from the first second to the very last.</p>.<p>The primary driver is the growing misuse of Artificial Intelligence. Meity believes that seemingly realistic but fake videos circulating online lead to misinformation and mislead users, and therefore, such content generated through AI tools needs to be marked/identified upfront.</p><p>By mandating a permanent label, the government wants to ensure that even if a viewer watches a video halfway or tunes in at any point of the clip, they are immediately aware that the content is synthetic.</p><p>Meity officials say the compliance with the previous mandate of "prominent visibility" label was not satisfactory.</p><p>Imagine a 5-minute AI-generated video that only displays a label for the first 5 seconds. If you join the video at the two-minute mark, you’ve missed the AI marker and might take it to be true. Officials argue an `always-on' marker is more practical. And transparent.</p><p>Social Media Intermediaries, platforms like X, YouTube, and Meta, must ensure these labels are maintained. Companies creating AI generation tools must build in these persistent labelling mechanisms, and the requirement applies to users of social media and AI tools.</p>.<p>The proposed "continuous label" mandate is part of a larger set of IT Rules amendments being mulled. Other proposed provisions that have emerged as major flashpoints include: Mandatory compliance of social media platforms with IT Ministry-issued advisories. The government proposes to make it legally binding for platforms to follow clarifications, advisories, SOPs and guidelines.</p><p>Influencer regulations: The 'news and current affairs content' posted by non-publisher users (read influencers and content creators) may soon have to comply with the same legal framework as registered digital news portals.</p>.<p>Digital advocacy groups, such as the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), have raised several red flags: Consultation Fatigue: The IFF argues that the government keeps adding new changes while an existing consultation is already underway, making it difficult for the public to provide structured feedback.</p><p>Ad-hoc Policy Making: Critics argue that the rules are being changed frequently without a long-term, stable roadmap.</p><p>Claims of legal overreach: IFF recently expressed concerns regarding the proposal to mandate compliance with "advisories", saying it "creates a sweeping power for Meity to issue binding instruments, which are not anchored in law".</p><p>The practical effect of the change would be a perpetual compliance threat for intermediaries, it said. Overall, IFF warned that the changes could significantly expand executive power over online speech.</p>.<p>The government has extended the deadline for stakeholders (platforms, civil society, and the public) to submit their feedback on these proposals to May 7, 2026. </p><p>MeitY has stated that the feedback will be held in a fiduciary capacity, meaning the identities of those providing comments will not be disclosed, to encourage free and honest opinion. Following the consultation, the government will take a view on the final version of the amended IT Rules.</p>