2026 for January 1970

Regulating Synthetic Media – India Tightens IT Rules on AI-Generated Content

February 11, 2026

Regulating Synthetic Media Latest News

The Union Government has notified amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
It will strengthen regulation of AI-generated (synthetic) content and drastically reduce takedown timelines for unlawful material.
The amendments (effective February 20, 2026) aim to curb the spread of non-consensual deepfakes, intimate imagery, and unlawful content, while reinforcing platform accountability under the IT Act, 2000.

Key Amendments at a Glance

Sharp reduction in removal timelines:
- For example,
  - For Court/Government-declared illegal content takedown timeline reduced to 3 hours (from earlier 24–36 hours.
  - Similarly, for non-consensual intimate imagery/deepfakes it is 2 hours (earlier 24 hours), and for other unlawful content from 36 hours to 3 hours.
- Rationale: Earlier timelines were seen as ineffective in preventing virality. The government argues tech companies possess sufficient technical capacity for faster removal.
- Concerns: Determining “illegality” within 2–3 hours is operationally difficult. Risk of over-censorship and precautionary takedowns. Increased compliance burden for intermediaries.
Mandatory Labelling of AI-generated content:
- Legal definition of “Synthetically Generated Information (SGI)”: Audio, visual or audio-visual content artificially created, generated, modified, or altered using a computer resource in a way that makes it appear real or indistinguishable from authentic events or persons.
Important features:
- AI-generated imagery must be labelled “prominently.”
- The earlier proposal requiring 10% of image space to carry the label has been diluted.
- Platforms must seek user disclosure for AI-generated content, proactively label content if disclosure is absent, and remove non-consensual deepfakes.
Exclusions: Routine editing and quality-enhancing tools (e.g., smartphone touch-ups) are excluded — narrowing the scope from the draft October 2025 version.

Safe Harbour and Intermediary Liability

What is Safe Harbour? Under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, intermediaries are protected from liability for user-generated content, provided they exercise “due diligence.”
Amendment impact:
- If an intermediary knowingly permits, promotes, or fails to act against unlawful synthetic content, it may be deemed to have failed due diligence.
- This may result in loss of safe harbour protection, significantly increasing regulatory pressure on platforms.

Administrative Changes

The amendment partially rolls back an earlier rule that limited States to appointing only one officer for issuing takedown orders.
Now, States can designate multiple authorised officers, addressing administrative needs of populous States.

Trigger Events - The Global Deepfake Crisis

The urgency follows global controversies, including AI platforms generating non-consensual intimate images of women.
Such incidents raise privacy concerns, gender dignity issues, pose threats to democratic discourse, and misrepresents real-world events.
This places the reform within a broader international debate on AI governance and platform accountability.

Governance and Constitutional Dimensions

Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech: Overbroad or rushed takedowns may chill legitimate expression. Short timelines increase risk of defensive over-removal.
Article 21 – Right to Privacy and Dignity: Faster removal of non-consensual deepfakes strengthens protection of individual dignity.
Federal implications: Allowing multiple State officers enhances decentralised enforcement.

Key Challenges

Determining illegality within 2–3 hours: Legal ambiguity, law enforcement communications may lack clarity.
Risk of over-censorship: Platforms may make mistakes on the side of removal - could undermine free speech and digital innovation.
Compliance burden on Big Tech: Real-time moderation requires high-end AI tools and human review. Smaller platforms may struggle disproportionately.
Verification mechanisms: Ensuring authenticity of user declarations. Deploying “reasonable technical measures” without privacy violations.

Way Forward

Clearer illegality standards: Develop structured guidance for platforms, and standardised digital takedown protocols.
Independent oversight mechanism: Appellate or review authority to check arbitrary takedowns.
Strengthening AI detection tools: Promote indigenous AI detection systems under India’s AI mission.
Harmonisation with Digital Personal Data Protection Act: Ensure consistency in privacy and consent standards.
Capacity building for States: Training authorised officers in cyber law and AI governance.

Conclusion

India’s amended IT Rules reflect a decisive shift toward proactive regulation of AI-driven misinformation and digital harm.
By these amendments, the government seeks to protect privacy, dignity, and public order in an era of rapidly advancing generative AI.
However, the reform also raises critical concerns. So, the long-term success of this framework will depend on calibrated enforcement, technological readiness, and institutional safeguards against overreach.

Source: TH | IE

Regulating Synthetic Media FAQs

Q1: What is the significance of the recent amendments to the IT Rules, 2021?

Ans: It strengthens digital governance by mandating prominent labelling of synthetic content and imposing strict takedown timelines.

Q2: How do the amended IT Rules impact the doctrine of ‘safe harbour’ for intermediaries?

Ans: The rules tighten due diligence obligations, making intermediaries vulnerable to loss of safe harbour.

Q3: What are the constitutional tensions arising from compressed takedown timelines under the amended IT Rules?

Ans: While faster takedowns protect dignity under Article 21, they risk over-censorship and chilling effects on free speech [Article 19(1)(a)].

Q4: What are the administrative and federal implications of the amendments?

Ans: The move enhances enforcement capacity in States while deepening decentralised digital regulation within India’s federal framework.

Q5: What are the challenges in operationalising the new definition of SGI under the IT Rules?

Ans: Ambiguity in determining illegality and verifying AI-generated disclosures within tight timelines creates compliance burdens.

India’s Aviation Sector at a Crossroads – Explained

February 11, 2026

Aviation Sector Latest News

India’s aviation sector is under scrutiny following repeated operational disruptions, safety incidents, and declining service reliability among major airlines.

Overview of India’s Aviation Sector

India has emerged as the world’s third-largest domestic aviation market, operating over 840 aircraft and carrying more than 350 million passengers annually.
Rapid growth in air travel demand has been driven by rising incomes, regional connectivity initiatives, and fleet expansion by private carriers.
However, this expansion has increasingly exposed structural weaknesses related to manpower, regulation, and market concentration.
While the sector contributes significantly to economic integration and mobility, its current growth trajectory appears overstretched, raising concerns about sustainability, safety, and passenger welfare.

Operational Disruptions and Safety Concerns

The past year witnessed multiple operational failures, including mass flight cancellations, prolonged delays, and safety-related incidents.
A major disruption in December involving IndiGo acted as a failed “stress test” for the system, revealing vulnerabilities that go beyond a single airline.
These incidents were not isolated but indicative of system-wide constraints, with airlines operating close to their maximum capacity.
The rising frequency of safety notices issued by the aviation regulator points to deeper compliance and oversight challenges.

Pilot Shortage and Flight Duty Time Constraints

One of the most critical structural challenges is the acute shortage of trained pilots. India’s aviation expansion has outpaced its training capacity.
New Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms, which mandate longer rest periods and reduced night operations, have made existing airline schedules difficult to sustain.
Major airlines operate with a pilot-to-aircraft ratio significantly below global benchmarks, increasing fatigue risks and operational fragility.
While India may require 25,000-30,000 pilots over the next decade, licensing and training bottlenecks have constrained supply, forcing airlines to rely on costly and limited foreign pilots as stopgap measures.

Regulatory Capacity and Oversight Gaps

Regulatory stress has compounded operational issues.
The aviation regulator faces significant staff shortages, with a large proportion of technical positions vacant despite rapid sectoral growth.
In practice, disruptions have often been managed through ad hoc exemptions rather than strict enforcement of safety norms.
This approach reflects a shift toward crisis management instead of preventive regulation, weakening long-term institutional capacity and undermining confidence in oversight mechanisms.

Market Concentration and the Aviation Duopoly

India’s domestic aviation market is highly concentrated, with two airline groups controlling nearly 90% of passenger traffic.
This level of concentration transforms dominant carriers into systemically important entities whose failures directly impact national connectivity.
On a majority of domestic routes, only one airline operates. Consequently, disruptions do not result in passenger redistribution but in the complete loss of connectivity, particularly affecting smaller cities and time-sensitive travel.

Entry of New Regional Airlines

To address concentration and improve connectivity, the government has approved new regional airlines aimed at serving underserved routes.
These entrants align with the objectives of the UDAN scheme, which has expanded regional air access across multiple States.
However, past failures of regional airlines highlight persistent challenges such as high fuel costs, weak demand, infrastructure gaps, and intense price competition.
Without sustained policy support, such as assured subsidies, better airport infrastructure, and relief from fuel price volatility, new entrants risk inheriting the same fragilities.

Structural Challenges and Fuel Price Volatility

Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) remains one of the biggest cost drivers for Indian airlines.
Prices are linked to global oil markets and currency fluctuations, exposing carriers to external shocks.
Combined with thin profit margins, this volatility has historically contributed to airline failures.
Globally, airlines maintain spare crew and capacity buffers to absorb shocks. Indian carriers, by contrast, operate at near-total utilisation, allowing minor disruptions to cascade across networks.

Source: TH

Aviation Sector FAQs

Q1: Why is India’s aviation sector facing repeated disruptions?

Ans: Operational overstretch, pilot shortages, and regulatory constraints have exposed systemic weaknesses.

Q2: What role do Flight Duty Time norms play in recent disruptions?

Ans: Stricter FDTL norms reduced scheduling flexibility amid insufficient pilot availability.

Q3: Why is market concentration a concern in Indian aviation?

Ans: High concentration means failures of dominant airlines directly disrupt national connectivity.

Q4: Can new regional airlines solve India’s aviation challenges?

Ans: They can help, but only with sustained policy support and cost mitigation measures.

Q5: What is the long-term risk if reforms are delayed?

Ans: Aviation growth may turn into recurring operational and safety crises affecting passengers.

No-Confidence Against the Speaker: Constitutional Process and Implications Explained

February 11, 2026

No-Confidence Against the Speaker Latest News

The Opposition has moved a no-confidence motion against Om Birla, the Lok Sabha Speaker. Parliamentary sources said the motion will now be examined and processed as per established rules.
The move follows criticism from the Congress and other parties, who accused the Speaker of not permitting the Leader of Opposition to quote from or discuss former Army Chief M M Naravane’s unpublished memoir.
The Opposition also objected to the Speaker’s claim that PM Modi could have been attacked inside the House, calling it unwarranted and contentious.

Removal of the Lok Sabha Speaker: What the Constitution Allows

The Lok Sabha Speaker (or Deputy Speaker) can be removed from office, but only through a strict constitutional process.
Under Article 94(c) of the Constitution, removal is possible by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha.
The provision applies only to the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha, and the procedural requirements are stringent, reflecting the high threshold set for removing the presiding officer of the House.

When Does the Lok Sabha Speaker or Deputy Speaker Vacate Office

Article 94 of the Constitution lays down the conditions under which the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha vacates office:
- Cessation of membership (Article 94(a)): They automatically vacate office if they cease to be a member of the Lok Sabha.
- Resignation (Article 94(b)): They may resign at any time by submitting a written resignation.
- Removal by resolution (Article 94(c)): They can be removed through a Lok Sabha resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the House.
These provisions ensure both stability and accountability of the presiding officers.

Procedure to Remove the Lok Sabha Speaker or Deputy Speaker

A member seeking removal must submit a written notice to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha.
The notice may be jointly signed by two or more members, but the resolution cannot be moved unless at least 14 days’ notice is given.
After receipt, a motion for leave to move the resolution is listed in the List of Business in the members’ names.
The date fixed must be any day after the 14-day notice period, following which the House may consider the motion as per rules.

Past Precedents of No-Confidence Motions Against Lok Sabha Speakers

No-confidence motions have been moved against the Lok Sabha Speaker on three occasions—in 1954, 1966, and 1987.
For such a motion to proceed, it must be supported by at least two Members of Parliament, and 50 members must stand in support, fulfilling the House’s quorum.
The procedure is governed by Rules 200–203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
Historically:
- 1954: G V Mavalankar, the first Speaker, faced a motion
- 1966: Motion against Hukam Singh
- 1987: Motion against Balram Jakhar
In all three cases, the motions failed, and none of the Speakers were removed from office.

Guidelines Governing a No-Confidence Motion Against the Speaker

Under Rule 200A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, a no-confidence motion against the Speaker must meet strict content and conduct requirements.
The resolution must be specific in its charges, clearly and precisely worded, and free of arguments, inferences, ironic expressions, imputations, or defamatory statements.
Additionally, once the motion is admitted for discussion, the Member(s) who submitted it are not permitted to make a speech, underscoring the procedural rigor governing such motions.

What Follows If a No-Confidence Motion Is Admitted

If a no-confidence motion is admitted, members supporting it must rise in their places.
If at least 50 members stand, the presiding officer declares that leave is granted and schedules the motion for a day within 10 days.
- If fewer than 50 members rise in support, the presiding officer declares that the member “has not the leave of the House”, and the motion does not proceed further.
- Additionally, any resolution for the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker submitted without the required notice is not taken up, ending the process at the preliminary stage.
On the appointed day, the resolution is listed in the business of the House and taken up for discussion.
The mover(s) may be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes, subject to the presiding officer’s permission. The debate must be strictly confined to the charges stated in the resolution.

Speaker’s Role During Consideration of Removal Motion

While a removal motion is under discussion, the Speaker continues in office and, as a Member of the Lok Sabha, retains the right to participate and speak in the proceedings.
The Speaker is entitled to vote in the first instance on the resolution or related matters, but cannot exercise a casting vote in the event of a tie.

Source: TH | NDTV

No-Confidence Against the Speaker FAQs

Q1: What triggered the No-Confidence Against the Speaker?

Ans: No-Confidence Against the Speaker was moved by the Opposition alleging procedural bias and controversial remarks during Lok Sabha proceedings involving sensitive political debates.

Q2: What constitutional provision governs No-Confidence Against the Speaker?

Ans: No-Confidence Against the Speaker is governed by Article 94(c), which allows removal through a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of Lok Sabha.

Q3: What procedural requirements apply to No-Confidence Against the Speaker?

Ans: No-Confidence Against the Speaker requires written notice, fourteen days’ advance intimation, and support of at least 50 members before the resolution is admitted.

Q4: Has No-Confidence Against the Speaker occurred earlier?

Ans: No-Confidence Against the Speaker has been attempted thrice—in 1954, 1966, and 1987—but none resulted in removal of the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Q5: What happens if No-Confidence Against the Speaker is admitted?

Ans: If No-Confidence Against the Speaker gains required support, the House debates strictly on stated charges, and the Speaker may participate and vote initially but lacks casting vote authority.

India’s Heritage Reclaimed: Smithsonian Returns Three Bronzes to India

February 11, 2026

India’s Heritage Reclaimed Latest News

Earlier this month, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art (NMAA) announced it will return three historic bronze sculptures to the Government of India, acknowledging they were illegally removed from temple settings.
The artefacts include: Shiva Nataraja (Chola period, ca. 990); Somaskanda (Chola period, 12th century); Saint Sundarar with Paravai (Vijayanagar period, 16th century).
The decision aligns with a global push for restitution of looted or illicitly trafficked cultural property to Asian countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.
As part of this broader effort, the United States returned 297 Indian antiquities in 2024 alone.
Of the three bronzes, two will be physically repatriated to India, while the Shiva Nataraja will remain at the Smithsonian on a long-term loan.
The return follows detailed provenance research that traced their unlawful removal, underscoring growing institutional accountability in global museum practices.

The Three Bronzes: Sacred Origins and Iconography

All three sculptures were sacred processional bronzes, traditionally carried during temple rituals, reflecting the refined bronze-casting traditions of South India.
These were not decorative objects but living icons central to worship and ceremonial life.

Shiva Nataraja: Lord of the Dance

The Shiva Nataraja bronze originated from the Sri Bhava Aushadesvara Temple in Tamil Nadu’s undivided Thanjavur district.
It portrays Shiva as “Lord of the Dance”, performing the ananda tandava (dance of bliss), symbolising cosmic creation, preservation, and destruction.

Somaskanda: The Divine Family

The Somaskanda bronze traces its provenance to the Visvanatha Temple in Mannargudi, Tamil Nadu.
It depicts:
- Shiva seated with Parvati (Uma)
- Their son Skanda, who may sit between or dance around them
Notably, the NMAA sculpture is missing Skanda.
According to experts, Skanda was often cast separately and was typically the first figure to be lost or separated.
- Archival photographs show Skanda was already missing by 1959.
Crucially, provenance research revealed that buried or damaged bronzes could later be reinstalled in temples, challenging earlier scholarly assumptions that burial meant permanent removal from ritual use.

Saint Sundarar with Paravai: Devotion in Bronze

The third sculpture depicts Saint Sundarar and his wife Paravai, originally from a Shiva temple in Veerasolapuram village, Tamil Nadu.
The couple were influential Shaivite saints, credited with spreading Shiva worship in eighth-century southern India, and are deeply revered in Tamil religious tradition.

Living Icons, Not Museum Objects

According to the NMAA, such images were:
- Housed in dedicated shrines for most of the year
- Once annually subjected to elaborate ritual bathing (abhisheka) using water, milk, yogurt, honey, sandalwood paste, and sacred ash
- Then dressed in ceremonial robes

How the Three Bronzes Entered the Smithsonian’s Collection

The three bronzes had been part of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art (NMAA) collections for decades.
They came under scrutiny during a systematic provenance review, which revealed gaps and inconsistencies in their documentation, according to the museum’s provenance team.
The bronzes were acquired during a period when museum collecting standards were less stringent.
Today, NMAA requires documentary proof of legal export, assessed against the UNESCO 1970 Convention, alongside export permits, seller consent, and a complete ownership trail, factoring in colonial and geopolitical contexts.
A 2023 collaboration with the French Institute of Pondicherry photo archives confirmed that the bronzes were photographed in situ in Tamil Nadu temples between 1956 and 1959.
The Archaeological Survey of India subsequently reviewed the findings and confirmed the sculptures were removed in violation of Indian law.
While the exact circumstances of removal remain unclear, the museum established that the bronzes appeared in US markets or collections after the 1950s and passed through dealers linked to illicit antiquities.
There is no evidence of lawful export from India.

Why the Smithsonian Is Returning the Bronzes

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art (NMAA) stated that the decision reflects its commitment to responsible stewardship of cultural heritage and greater transparency.
NMAA began its restitution efforts in 2002, making it one of the earlier US museums to address issues of illicitly acquired cultural property.
The institution acknowledges that many artefacts were transferred over the past two centuries without the consent of local communities.

What Restitution Means for India

Restoring Legal and Cultural Ownership - Restitution ensures that India regains legal title over artefacts that rightfully belong to it. While ownership returns to the Government of India, objects may remain on long-term loan, allowing them to be displayed internationally while acknowledging their true origin.
Ethics and International Goodwill - The provenance research and return process reflect ethical museum practice and foster diplomatic goodwill. Restitution signals recognition of historical wrongs and builds trust between source nations and global institutions.
Opportunities for Cultural Collaboration - Repatriation can open doors to long-term cultural partnerships.
- For example, after returning three sculptures to Cambodia—one remaining on loan—the museum collaborated on a five-year exhibition project in 2023.
- Such arrangements allow source countries to showcase their heritage globally through structured cooperation.
Expanding Global Cultural Presence
- For India, restitution does not necessarily mean withdrawal from global spaces. Instead, it can:
  - Strengthen India’s cultural diplomacy
  - Promote curated international exhibitions
  - Ensure wider global engagement with Indian heritage

Source: IE | SI

India’s Heritage Reclaimed FAQs

Q1: Why is India’s Heritage Reclaimed in the news?

Ans: India’s Heritage Reclaimed is in the news after the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art decided to return three sacred South Indian bronzes removed illegally from temples.

Q2: Which artefacts are part of India’s Heritage Reclaimed?

Ans: India’s Heritage Reclaimed includes Shiva Nataraja, Somaskanda, and Saint Sundarar with Paravai—Chola and Vijayanagar period bronzes originally worshipped in Tamil Nadu temples.

Q3: How did provenance research support India’s Heritage Reclaimed?

Ans: India’s Heritage Reclaimed followed archival evidence, temple photographs, and verification by the Archaeological Survey of India confirming unlawful removal and lack of legal export documentation.

Q4: Why is India’s Heritage Reclaimed significant globally?

Ans: India’s Heritage Reclaimed reflects a wider global restitution movement where museums reassess colonial-era acquisitions and return looted cultural property to rightful nations.

Q5: What does India’s Heritage Reclaimed mean for cultural diplomacy?

Ans: India’s Heritage Reclaimed strengthens cultural sovereignty while enabling long-term loans and collaborative exhibitions, enhancing India’s global cultural presence and ethical museum partnerships.