The Bombay High Court has declared the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 unconstitutional through an order passed last week. A legal tussle over the amendments had always been surrounded with controversy since their introduction in the public domaiThe amendments brought new guidelines for stricter regulation of intermediaries or social media platforms and digital media outlets in terms of content regulation. Under these amendments, intermediaries are now liable for taking down content characterized as "false" or "misleading," with arguments about the openness to censorship and arbitrary takedowns of online speech. These challenges were based under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The petitioners urged that the amendments exceeded the scope of reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2), which permits the government to limit the freedom of speech on several grounds such as public order, decency or morality. According to the petitioners, the amendments conferred disproportionate powers on government authorities to regulate content without clear safeguards to prevent misuse. Justice AS Chandurkar decided on the side of the petitioners and declared amendments unconstitutional. He argued that amendments fail the proportionality test, a principle of jurisprudence announced by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (case related to the right to privacy). The proportionality test demands that any limitation on the rights must be for a legitimate aim or objective, necessary to achieve that objective, not excessive, and not disproportionate in nature. Justice Chandurkar concluded that the amendments posed an unjustifiable threat to freedom of speech, especially without adequate procedural safeguards. In his words: 'The exercise of power is, inherently, too vast and vague to be exercised with the requisite reasonable judgment to meet the test of article 19. This judgment is significant in the self-control of digital media regulation in India while the judiciary reaffirms their role in a society that seeks to foster free speech in the digital world balanced by constraints on governmental overreach.n.