The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, better known as MeitY, has issued an advisory to social media platforms about misinformation and manipulated content, according to a report by Moneycontrol.com. At first glance, this may sound like another piece of bureaucratic paperwork, but it is actually a significant moment in India’s digital governance. The advisory is a clear signal that the government is no longer willing to accept a passive, hands-off approach from social media companies when it comes to the integrity of online information. It comes at a time when deepfakes, AI-generated videos, doctored audio clips, and coordinated online falsehoods have become more convincing and more widespread than ever before. The report says the advisory is not a new law, but rather a reminder to platforms that they are already bound by the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. That distinction matters, because the government is not asking platforms to do anything new in a dramatic legislative sense; it is asking them to actually comply with the rules they have long accepted. The deeper message is that social media platforms have become the gatekeepers of public conversation, and with that power must come responsibility. The advisory warns that platforms can no longer claim to be neutral digital bulletin boards when their algorithms are actively pushing content to millions of people. If they host content that is patently false, misleading, or manipulated, and fail to act quickly, they risk losing the legal immunity that has protected them from liability for user-generated posts. That is not just a legal technicality—it is a serious threat to their business model. The government is essentially telling them: play a responsible role, or face the consequences.
But what does the advisory actually say in practical terms? As per the Moneycontrol report, MeitY has instructed social media platforms to ensure that their services do not allow users to post content that is “patently false and untrue or misleading” in nature, particularly content that is generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence and machine learning tools, including deepfakes. Platforms are expected to inform users, plainly and clearly, that such content is forbidden under their terms and under the law. This is not only about removing content after it is reported; the advisory asks platforms to make “all reasonable efforts” to prevent such content from being uploaded and spread in the first place. That means building better detection systems, improving human moderation, and using technology to identify signs that an image or video has been digitally altered. The advisory also reportedly asks platforms to assist in identifying the originator of harmful content, especially when a deepfake goes viral. Because manipulated videos are often reshared hundreds of times through different accounts, it is not always easy to find the original source. The government wants platforms to preserve records and cooperate with law enforcement in tracing malicious content. Additionally, platforms have been asked to strengthen their grievance redressal mechanisms. A grievance officer cannot be a mere name on a website; that officer must actually respond to complaints from users, take action, and provide transparent updates. MeitY has also reportedly sought compliance reports from platforms, meaning they will have to document the steps they are taking. This transforms the advisory from a nice-to-have public relations gesture into a formal expectation with paper trails and deadlines.
To understand why this advisory carries so much legal weight, it helps to understand India’s existing framework for the internet. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, platforms enjoy what is commonly called “safe harbour” protection. This means they cannot automatically be held legally liable for content uploaded by third-party users. The policy logic is simple: if every platform could be sued for every post, no company would ever be willing to host public conversations. But safe harbour is not absolute. It comes with conditions. Platforms must observe “due diligence” as set out in the government’s intermediary rules. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 contain a list of prohibited categories of content, and they include material that is defamatory, obscene, harmful to minors, or in violation of existing laws. More importantly, rule 3(1)(b) also covers content that is deliberately false, misleading, or the kind of information that a reasonable person might perceive as fact even though it is not. The advisory now makes clear that deepfakes and AI-manipulated content fall squarely into this category. If a platform hosts such content and does not take it down within the timelines prescribed by the rules, it cannot claim safe harbour. Under Rule 7, the government may take action against a non-compliant intermediary, including barring it from the benefit of Section 79. In plain language, this means the platform itself can be held legally responsible for illegal content created by someone else. On top of that, the government has the power to issue blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act, compelling platforms to make certain content unavailable to users in India. The advisory is therefore not a polite suggestion. It is a warning shot aimed at the very legal foundation on which social media companies operate in India.
The timing of this advisory is no accident. The issue of deepfakes and manipulated media has been gaining urgent public attention, especially after several high-profile incidents in India. Perhaps the most notable was a viral deepfake video of a well-known actress, which showed her face digitally grafted onto another person’s body. That clip sparked widespread outrage and raised public awareness about how easily an individual’s identity and dignity can be weaponised. Other cases have involved fake audio recordings, doctored videos of politicians, and AI-generated images used to spread communal or political falsehoods. With general elections in India, the danger is even more acute. A realistic fake video can be used to depict a leader saying something racial, inflammatory, or damaging, and by the time the truth emerges, the damage is already done. Misinformation can also be used to suppress voter turnout, create confusion about voting dates, or stoke fear among minority communities. MeitY has been in conversations with social media companies and industry bodies for some time, calling for stricter action against deepfakes. The advisory formalises those expectations. It is also in line with a broader global movement. The European Union has its Digital Services Act, Singapore has its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, and other democracies are exploring ways to regulate the influence of platforms. India’s approach, at least in this case, is to use existing rules and amplify them through a public advisory. That has the advantage of speed, but it also leaves some questions unanswered. How exactly should platforms define “manipulated content”? Where is the line between malicious deepfake and harmless satire? How can the government preserve free speech while demanding stricter takedowns? The advisory does not fully answer these questions, but it does force the conversation to happen.
For ordinary people, this advisory means more than just legalities. It changes the atmosphere in which we all consume and share information. Platforms are likely to become more cautious. They may label synthetic media, add warning screens, and remove content more aggressively. Users may see more notices saying a video has been checked or disputed by fact-checkers. The role of the grievance officer may become more visible, giving users a clearer pathway when they want something removed. But the advisory also places a burden on every one of us. It is a reminder that social media users are not passive victims of algorithms. We are participants, and often vectors, in the spread of misinformation. When you receive a disturbing video that reinforces something you already believe, the temptation to forward it immediately is strong. The advisory is, in a way, asking us to resist that temptation. Ask yourself a few questions before sharing: Who created this video? What is the original source? Is this the only version of the clip? Has it been reported by credible news outlets? If the answer is uncertain, do not share. This may seem like a simple habit, but it is one of the most powerful antidotes to deepfakes. People cannot be regulated into believing everything they see; they need to learn how to verify. At the same time, there is a legitimate concern about overreach. In a democracy, falsehoods can and should be challenged, but clear lines must protect satire, opinion, artistic expression, and legitimate dissent. The advisory should not become an excuse for censorship. It should be a tool for protecting truth. That balance will require constant public scrutiny, and it is a conversation that should involve not just the government and the platforms, but also journalists, civil society, and ordinary users who care about an open internet.
In the end, the MeitY advisory is about trust. The internet has thrived because it promised open access to information, but that promise is now threatened by content that looks real but is synthetic. If people cannot tell the difference between a real video and a deepfake, they will eventually stop believing anything they see, and the internet will lose its value as a medium of public conversation and democratic deliberation. The advisory tells social media platforms that they are no longer just hosting spaces; they are part of the information ecosystem and must act like it. It also tells citizens that they are not powerless; they have the right to report harmful content and demand a response. But the rules alone will not solve the problem. No advisory can repair the fundamental crisis of credibility that emerges when lies travel faster than truth. The real work lies in creating a culture of digital responsibility—one where platforms invest in safety, where governments avoid arbitrary overreach, where journalists do their jobs, and where citizens think before they share. If that culture grows, the advisory will have served its purpose. If it does not, then every new law will simply add another layer of procedural language to a problem that ultimately requires human wisdom. The battle against misinformation is not just a legal battle. It is a battle for the way we understand reality itself. MeitY may have issued the advisory, but the responsibility is not theirs alone. It belongs to every person who has ever hit the forward button. The next time you see a shocking video, pause. Verify. Choose truth over reaction. That is the most human response to an artificial problem, and it may be the only one that really works.