y.

.

[y. @inks3al]

about time, the enemies of science data and statistics are about to kill yet another one of the few remaining prestigious institutions of India

[Pragnya Gupta @GuptaPragnya]

95 years of hard-earned autonomy. Now under the scanner, this time the ISI

The Indian Statistical Institute (founded 1931 by P.C. Mahalanobis) is not just another campus. It is one of India’s rare institutions that was built on scientific independence, not bureaucratic control. The ISI Act of 1959 recognised it as an Institution of National Importance while preserving its society-based, faculty-driven character.

The new Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026 proposes to scrap that framework. It converts ISI into a statutory body corporate, replaces the representative Council with a government-appointed Board of Governors, and significantly curtails the role of the Academic Council. Faculty and the Institute’s own statutory bodies have publicly said this was done with zero meaningful consultation with them.

The government’s pitch is “modernisation” and alignment with IIT/IIM-style governance. Critics inside ISI argue the opposite: it concentrates power, reduces elected academic voice, and opens the door to external interference in academic decisions. They also note that the 4th Review Committee (Mashelkar) did not recommend repealing the 1959 Act or abolishing the Society structure.

This is not an abstract governance debate. Institutions that produce independent data, rigorous statistical research, and critical inquiry need structural insulation from short-term political or bureaucratic priorities. Once that insulation is thinned, it is hard to restore.
Academic freedom is not a slogan. It is the operating condition of any serious research institute. ISI faculty are right to raise the alarm.

Parliament should insist on genuine consultation with the Institute’s own bodies before rewriting a 95-year-old model that actually worked. Another Premier Institute being Saffronised and being brought under RSS Siege.

[jack @jack]

the government of india does not like technologies like bitchat and wants it taken down

[Sandeep Manudhane @sandeep_PT]

As I wrote earlier, ISRO will be stripped to the bones, and the riches handed over to private companies for peanuts.

[nisarga @ni5arga]

CBSE people didn't configure their AWS bucket properly and now we can paginate & enumerate all their media which has 2026 answersheets & question papers. ListObjectsV2 works without any auth and the bucket root is listable too — anyone on the internet can download any scanned booklet — across institutions. Multiple institutions are using the same bucket, insanely insecure.

[Srinivas Kodali @digitaldutta]

Who should respond to a cyber security incident in Digital India?
Answer : Everyone except Computer Emergency Response Team.

[Sarthak Sidhant @sidhant_sarthak]

CBSE has systematically rewritten its rulebook to favor Coempt Eduteck.

check out the blog.

[NASA @NASA]

A new milestone for humankind: The crew of Artemis II are now the farthest any human has ever travelled, reaching a maximum distance of 252,752 miles from Earth.

This surpasses the previous record set by Apollo 13 in 1970 by about 4,102 miles.

[Prasanna Viswanathan @prasannavishy]

India's premier nuclear research body BARC was allocated ₹1,100 crore for R&D in 2025-26 and spent just 55% of it by December 2025. Establishment costs, though were nearly three times higher at ₹3,135 crore. This pattern repeats across every institution under the Department of Atomic Energy.

The institution carries decades of foundational work that underpins India's entire civilian nuclear programme @businessline

[Brett Kollmann @BrettKollmann]

The audience can feel the difference with a real set and real lighting vs just doing it all with a green screen and a "fix it in post" attitude.

[NASA @NASA]

These two images were taken by @astro_reid only minutes apart. The stark difference is the result of camera settings. In the first, a longer shutter speed let in much more light from Earth, while the shorter shutter speed in the second emphasizes our planet's nighttime glow.

[y. @inks3al]

but does it fold into the wall for extra room when guests are over ?

[🖤 Buy Physical Media 🖤 @VHSDVDBLURAY4K]

Watching Oppenheimer just the way Christopher Nolan Intended

[y. @inks3al]

this one's such a cool pic of earth, shows the night side of earth completely moon lit

zoomin a bit and the edge of earth's atmosphere and aurora borealis are visible.

even shows stars along with good amount of surface detail on earth without over exposing it! SO COOL!!

[NASA @NASA]

We see our home planet as a whole, lit up in spectacular blues and browns. A green aurora even lights up the atmosphere. That's us, together, watching as our astronauts make their journey to the Moon.

[Scott Manley @DJSnM]

This looks like it's a daytime shot, but, it's actually taken from the dark side of Earth, with the planet illuminated by moonlight. This lets faint details like the aurora, stars and the sodium layer show up without over exposing the planet.

[NASA @NASA]

Good morning, world! 🌎

We have spectacular new high-resolution images of our home planet, all of us looking back through the Orion capsule window at our Artemis II astronauts as they continue their journey to the Moon.

[NASA @NASA]

We're going around the Moon. Come watch with us. Artemis II's four-astronaut crew is lifting off from @NASAKennedy on an approximately 10-day mission that will bring us closer to living on the Moon and Mars. The launch window opens at 6:24pm ET (2224 UTC). https://t.co/X27QJejNDt

[Economic Times @EconomicTimes]

Vedanta moves Supreme Court seeking stay on Adani’s takeover of Jaiprakash Associates.

https://t.co/RXNZpRnf2n

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

Sound the Alarm : IFF’s First Read on MeitY's Draft IT Rules Second Amendment, 2026

New Delhi, 30 March 2026

On 30 March 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology published proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, inviting public comments by 14 April, a comment period of barely fifteen days for changes with far reaching consequences for free speech and intermediary governance in India. We have conducted a quick review of the draft amendments. Despite being presented as "clarificatory and procedural," they represent a dangerous expansion of executive power over online speech.

We wish to state at the outset that these proposed amendments need to be immediately withdrawn and every member in our citizenry should demand their roll back and stand with the Constitution of India. These proposed amendments come at a time of fear and increased government directed censorship, especially of online political speech that includes parody and satire of the government, including the Prime Minister.

In brief the five changes are listed below:

1. Rule 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h): Insertion of phrases within existing clauses making data retention obligations under the IT Rules additional to retention requirements under any other law.

2. Rule 3(4): Insertion of a new clause that mandates intermediary compliance with MeitY-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines, making such compliance a condition for retaining safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. These are not anchored to the rule making powers of the IT Act, 2000 and provide uncanalised power to MEITY despite it stating otherwise.

3. Rule 8(1) proviso: A substitution in the proviso that expands applicability of MIB’s oversight mechanism in Part III of the rules to: (1) intermediaries and (2) users who are not “publishers” and post/share news and current affairs content online. This oversight mechanism contains the blocking powers of MIB by way of Rule 14 (Inter-Departmental Committee), Rule 15 (Procedure for issuing directions to block), and Rule 16 (Emergency blocking provisions).

4. Rule 14(2) : A substitution that expands the scope of the IDC from hearing "complaints or grievances" to hearing "matters", including those referred by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

5. Rule 14(5) : Replaces "complaints or grievances" with "the matter" in relation to IDC examination and recommendations.

A massive expansion of an unconstitutional censorship and regulatory power

First and most concerningly, Rule 3(4) creates a sweeping power for MeitY to issue binding instruments which are not anchored in law such as clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines that intermediaries must comply with as a condition of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act.

The Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, remains the foundational precedent governing intermediary liability. It constrains the proposed amendments in several ways. First, the court read down Section 79(3)(b) to require that "actual knowledge" of unlawful content must come through a court order or government notification. Any Rule 3(4) making MeitY, "clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs", lower the constitutional threshold for intermediary due diligence obligations.

Further, the settled principle in Indian administrative law, reaffirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, is that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute. It is important to note that the rule-making power under Section 87(1) of the IT Act is confined to, "carry[ing] out the provisions" of the Act. Section 87(2)(zg) authorizes rules for intermediary guidelines under Section 79(2), and Section 87(2)(z) for blocking procedures under Section 69A(2). Justice Chandurkar's judgement in the Kunal Kamra case clearly found the FCU amendment was not properly referable to either provision. Hence, any Rule 3(4) mandating compliance with MeitY advisories would face identical challenges since they create substantive new obligations not contemplated by Sections 79 or 87.

Even though Rule 3(4)(b)(ii) states that such, “advisories” etc. need to, “clearly specify the statutory provision or legal basis under which it is issued”, since these are not required to be published or made public there is every likelihood these will be issued with secrecy and hence may just in a tautological manner refer back to Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. This is similar to a logical fallacy in which it is clearly observable that a student is cheating on an exam who then claims that they may be permitted to continue cheating since they are stating at the same time they are not cheating.

The practical effect of Rule 3(4) is that intermediaries face a perpetual compliance threat. Any failure to comply with any MeitY-issued instrument, however vague, however rapidly issued may cost them their safe harbour. The response for an intermediary is over-compliance and over-censorship.

Circumventing existing stay orders

The original proviso to Rule 8(1) stated that Part III applied to intermediaries only "for the purposes of rules 15 and 16" i.e., content blocking directions and emergency blocking. The amended proviso now extends this to Rule 14, bringing intermediaries and user-generated news/current affairs content under the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee.

Under Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the 2021 IT Rules, there is a Code of Ethics compliance requirement and the three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, both of which were stayed by the Bombay High Court on 14 August 2021 as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a) and ultra vires the IT Act. On the oversight mechanism in Rules 14, 15, and 16, the Bombay High Court granted the petitioners to seek relief on this rule when an Inter Departmental Committee is established. The Madras High Court affirmed this stay as having pan-India effect in its order of 16 September 2021 in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India, observing that "an oversight mechanism to control the media by the government may rob the media of its independence."

Both these cases, along with other cases challenging various provisions of the 2021 IT Rules, are now pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court.

The expansion of Rule 8(1) to cover Rules 14, 15, and 16 is an attempt to expand the blocking powers of MIB to both intermediaries and users who are not “publishers” but post news and current affairs content online. The IDC can now examine "matters" relating to user-generated news content on intermediary platforms without the Code of Ethics framework having been adjudicated as constitutional; the government effectively obtains the content oversight machinery that three High Courts found illegal, through a different procedural door.

Transforming the IDC from Grievance Body to Censorship Apparatus

The original Rule 14(2) required the IDC to hear "complaints regarding violation or contravention of the Code of Ethics." The amended version removes this requirement entirely.

The IDC now hears:
(a) grievances arising from decisions at Level I or II; or
(b) "matters" referred to by the Ministry.

Clause (b) is unconstrained since, (a) there is no requirement that the "matter" arise from a complaint, (b) no requirement that the "matter" relate to a Code of Ethics violation; and (c) no requirement that the affected party be heard before the referral. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting can, on its own motion, refer any content-related "matter" to the IDC.

The cumulative effect of the amendments to Rules 8 and 14 is to reconstruct the oversight machinery that the Bombay and Madras High Courts found constitutionally suspect, in a form designed to evade the existing interim orders. The IDC, previously limited to the three-tier complaints process under the stayed Rules 9(3), 12, and 13 framework, now operates as a free-standing censorship committee that can take up "matters" referred by the executive.

Increased user surveillance through mandatory data retention directions

Insertion of phrases within existing clauses making data retention obligations under the IT Rules additional to retention requirements under any other law. For instance, the mandatory data retention of user data beyond 180 days within Rule 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) may be prescribed for longer periods and other purposes raising risks of surveillance and even potentially data leaks of sensitive data that is stored for longer periods of time. Government mandates for data retention as to their legal authority and hence period of retention will be beyond those contained under the IT Act.

SOS for Digital Rights

IFF urges an urgent rollback!

We are alarmed by the continuing expansion of unchecked executive power that is opposed to the Constitution of India. The present actions of MEITY smack of digital authoritarianism and we call on them to withdraw these proposed amendments.

The proper course is to await judicial determination of the pending challenges, respect interim protections granted by constitutional courts, and pursue regulatory objectives through parliamentary legislation rather than subordinate instruments that exceed the parent statute.

If not withdrawn, IFF will file a detailed response before the comment deadline. We call upon all stakeholders to submit their objections before 14 April 2026 at [email protected]

[Michael @TheMG3D]

I finally made more art!

[Sidharth.M.P @sdhrthmp]

A Parliamentary panel (comprising ruling & opposition members) has exposed that ISRO-developed tech used in 🇮🇳 rockets, satellites, related systems, is being sold at very cheap rates to Private firms... Third-party audit recommended

My report 👇
https://t.co/OoJizg1TBD