According to a report by the Indian Express, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has begun discussions on reconsidering the safe harbour protection provided to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act, 2000”). The discussions also include greater regulatory oversight over social media platforms, advance intimation of product changes, and a revamp of the existing grievance redressal framework.
Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 grants ‘safe harbour’ protection to internet intermediaries, meaning that they will not be held liable for the actions of third parties hosted by them, subject to the fact that they don’t initiate transmissions, select the receivers of transmissions, or modify the content being shared by them. Social media platforms such as Instagram, X, and Meta, are treated as intermediaries under the IT Act, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules 2021”).
The government, as per the report, is increasingly taking the view that because social media platforms use algorithms to curate, amplify and moderate content, they now function as publishers rather than mere carriers of information. Publishers of content are defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the IT Rules as “performing a significant role in determining the online curated content being made available.” Reportedly, such active use of algorithms is viewed by the government as exercising control over the content shared through their platforms. As a result, the Indian Express report says, the government is examining whether such platforms should continue to enjoy the same degree of safe harbour protection, and is considering restricting this protection to services that merely transmit or carry information such as internet service providers (ISPs), telecom service providers (TSPs) and peer-to-peer messaging platforms.
However, this approach takes a misguided view of safe harbour granted under Section 79, and fails to address the harms arising out of illegal user-generated content. As held by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Section 79 is a statutory protection offered to intermediaries, not a conditional privilege that can be withdrawn by executive discretion. The nature of the algorithms employed by such intermediaries has no bearing on the legal immunity granted to them under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. SFLC.in had raised alarm bells about this interpretation of Section 79 previously with regard to the changes proposed by the Draft IT Second Amendment Rules, 2026 which required intermediaries to comply with and give effect to any clarification, advisory, order, direction, standard operating procedure, code of practice or guideline issued by the MeitY in relation to Part II of the IT Rules.
If platforms are compelled to be liable for user generated content, they will rationally prioritise risk avoidance and compliance, which could result in over-monitoring and preventive, over-censorship. A change like this, to strip intermediaries of their safe harbour, would incentivise platforms to take up strict content moderation practices, resulting in the removal of lawful content for simply being contentious. Political speech, journalistic content and criticism of public authorities could be vulnerable to such over-removal. This could create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and encourage private censorship by platforms seeking to protect themselves from legal liability.
The government is also considering adding requirements for social media and messaging platforms to inform authorities before introducing major product changes that could have implications for user safety. This would also raise significant concerns regarding the scope of regulatory oversight. The urgency of overseeing design changes is currently being addressed before the Supreme Court, as seen by the recent judicial scrutiny in Sreerupa Chowdhury v. Union of India, where the Apex Court issued notice to the Centre and Meta over a public interest litigation challenging addictive algorithmic features like infinite scrolling and compulsive mechanics and their harmful impact on children’s health and safety. Adding additional requirements for ministerial stamps on product changes would result in a significant curtailing of free speech rights online behind an opaque veil that ordinary users cannot access, and would essentially function as a backdoor for state-imposed restrictions on politically sensitive or dissenting, or satirical content.
The third area under consideration is an overhaul of the existing grievance redressal framework for social media users. The government reportedly intends that ordinary users should be allowed to seek removal of harmful content, particularly deepfakes, sexually explicit material shared without consent, child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM), and other forms of non-consensual imagery (NCII). These discussions come after increasing concerns from the government that existing grievance mechanisms do not sufficiently empower individuals whose images or identities are misused online.
However, strengthening platform accountability must be accompanied by improving existing safeguards and remedies. In our work, particularly with RightsLine, grievance officers have taken significantly longer than the statutory timeline of 7 days to respond to reports. Further, appeals to the Grievance Appellate Committee take around 90 – 120 days to be resolved as well. Ordinary users do not have access to the platforms’ contentions or the opportunity to respond to them either. Introducing greater platform liability without fixing these gaps will leave users with no concrete remedy.
Such changes do not adequately address the real harms caused by unlawful user-generated content. In our comments on the Draft Amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 relating to Synthetically Generated Information, we had called for a harm-centric approach, and we reiterate that call now. Any framework seeking to regulate online content or intermediaries must ensure the protection of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and not encourage excessive content removal without necessarily providing users with more effective protection and grievance redressal. The proposed changes, if any, need to be published for public consultation, with sufficient time provided for comments.
