A proposed review of the legal shield that protects online intermediaries in India could lead platforms to remove far more content than the law requires, the Internet Freedom Foundation has warned. The group argues that weakening safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act would make companies such as Meta, Google and X answerable for what users post, giving them a strong incentive to delete material at the first sign of a complaint.
Why Safe Harbour Matters to Ordinary Users
Safe harbour is usually discussed as a protection for technology companies, but the Foundation contends that its real beneficiaries are the people who speak through those platforms. If an intermediary is not liable for third-party content by default, it has little reason to police every post or to act on every objection. Remove that protection, and the calculation changes. A platform facing potential legal exposure has every reason to take down anything that might attract a complaint, whether or not it breaks the law.
That dynamic is what worries the IFF. Political criticism, coverage of protests and satire are precisely the kinds of content that tend to draw complaints, and precisely the kinds that are hardest to classify as unlawful at speed. An intermediary weighing legal risk against the cost of keeping a post online has an obvious incentive to err on the side of removal.
The Legal Ground Under Section 79
The current framework owes much to the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In that case the court read down Section 79(3)(b) and established that intermediaries are generally expected to act on takedown demands that come through a court order or a lawful direction from an appropriate government agency. The purpose was to stop platforms from becoming private arbiters of legality, judging the lawfulness of millions of user posts under the threat of losing their protection.
The IFF's objection is that any rollback of this approach would reintroduce that private arbitration by another route. It has pointed to two recent developments as evidence of a wider trend. The first is the 2023 amendment creating a government fact-checking unit, which the Bombay High Court later struck down. The second is the Sahyog portal, through which takedown requests are routed and which X is challenging in court. Both, in the Foundation's view, show a pattern of expanding state influence over what remains visible online.
A Wider Pattern of Pressure on Platforms
The Foundation describes the safe harbour review as one piece of a growing regulatory push. It cites an episode in August in which a parliamentary standing committee reportedly sought an apology from Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg over the temporary removal of a video featuring the Prime Minister. It also points to the reported internal discussions within the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which were said to be shaped by complaints that platforms favoured Opposition narratives and by concerns about Instagram's role during student protests in July.
The IFF has also criticised advisories issued by MeitY on October 8 and 10, 2026. It argues that enhanced due diligence expectations could push platforms toward proactive censorship, and it opposes proposals that would require government approval before companies change their products or services. In the Foundation's reading, such measures would give officials a degree of control over the design of platforms that goes well beyond content removal.
Where the Foundation Accepts Regulation
The IFF does not dismiss the harms that drive regulatory demands. It acknowledges serious abuses involving child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate images and deepfakes, and it refers to the Supreme Court's observations in the Just Rights for Children Alliance matter on October 15, 2026. Its proposed answer is targeted rather than blanket: specific obligations for specific harms, independent oversight, transparent takedown procedures and workable grievance redressal. The distinction it draws is between regulating particular categories of damaging content and making platforms broadly liable for everything users say.
Next Steps and the Question of Transparency
The Foundation plans to submit a detailed representation to MeitY, arguing that the proposed changes to Section 79 are unconstitutional and unworkable, and to approach the parliamentary standing committee on communications and information technology. It also intends to file Right to Information applications seeking meeting records, agendas, attendance lists and official file notings connected with the review, including discussions involving Meta and other platforms during July and August.
Its central demand is procedural as much as substantive. The IFF wants any proposed amendments published, followed by public consultation and parliamentary debate. Decisions that bear on online expression, it argues, should not be settled in closed-door exchanges between officials and technology companies. Whether the government responds in that spirit will indicate how much room the public is given to shape the rules that govern what it can say online.
