Since India’s synthetic-media rules took effect on February 20, 2026, X has not published any compliance report on its transparency page. The last report published was for the period from January 26, 2026, to February 25, 2026.
This is not a voluntary disclosure X has let lapse. Rule 4(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 requires every significant social media intermediary — any platform with more than 50 lakh registered Indian users to:
“publish periodic compliance report every month mentioning the details of complaints received and action taken thereon, and, in respect of a significant social media intermediary, the number of specific communication links or parts of information that the intermediary has removed or disabled access to in pursuance of any proactive monitoring conducted by using automated tools or any other relevant information as may be specified”
Rule 7 spells out the consequence: an intermediary that fails to observe the Rules can lose the exemption from liability that Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 grants it for third-party content. X acknowledges the obligation on the same page:
“Pursuant to Rule 4(1)(d) of India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, X publishes a monthly report regarding our processing of reports from users in India.”
Five completed periods, zero reports
X’s reporting cycle runs from the 26th of one month to the 25th of the next. Since its last report, five full periods have ended without a filing:
- February 26 – March 25, 2026
- March 26 – April 25, 2026
- April 26 – May 25, 2026
- May 26 – June 25, 2026
- June 26 – July 25, 2026
A sixth period (July 26 – August 25) is currently running.
WhatsApp and Meta kept filing
This gap becomes starker when compared with peers. WhatsApp’s India monthly reports page shows an unbroken monthly sequence. It published its latest report on August 1, 2026, covering June — the roughly five-week lag platforms typically run. Even allowing X the same lag, its next filing is more than four months overdue. Meta’s regulatory transparency page likewise lists monthly reports for India. What makes this gap more significant is what these reports would have revealed.
About X’s missing reports
The missing months are exactly the months in which X’s newest obligations have applied. The amendments notified on February 10, 2026 (G.S.R. 120(E)) inserted Rule 3(3) and Rule 4(1A) into the IT Rules. These require platforms to deploy technical measures against unlawful synthetically generated information — child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate imagery, false documents, and content that “falsely depicts or portrays a natural person or real-world event” — and to label all other synthetic content prominently, with permanent embedded metadata and a unique identifier. Significant social media intermediaries must additionally make users declare synthetic content at upload and verify those declarations. The same amendments cut the takedown clock under Rule 3(1)(d) to three hours, and to two hours for non-consensual intimate imagery.
The monthly compliance report is the only public window into how platforms enforce any of this — complaints received, action taken, proactive removals. X has kept that window shut for exactly the life of the new regime. No public number exists today, from the company or the government, on how X handles synthetic-media content. The silence is all the more conspicuous because X is simultaneously fighting the Sahyog portal case in the Supreme Court over content-takedown architecture.
MediaNama has sent detailed questions to MeitY’s cyber-law division. X’s grievance form offers no category for queries about its compliance reporting, so we reached its press team instead. We sent the following questions to X:
- When X will publish the five pending reports and what measures it has deployed to comply with Rules 3(3) and 4(1A)
- Whether MeitY has contacted it about the missing reports
- Whether it maintains that it retains Section 79 safe harbour despite Rule 7
MediaNama sent the following questions to MeitY:
- Whether it is aware of the non-publication of compliance reports
- Whether it has sought an explanation or exercised its Rule 4(9) power to call for information from X
- Whether any platform has reported synthetic-media enforcement figures since the amended rules took effect
We will update the story when they respond.
Also read: