Relevance: GS1-SEC2,GS2-SEC3
Introduction
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been at the centre of legal debate over intermediary liability and content moderation. The recent petition by X (formerly Twitter) before the Karnataka High Court challenges the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b), arguing that it is being misused to bypass constitutional safeguards, thereby threatening digital freedom and due process.
Understanding Section 79 and Safe Harbour
Section 79 provides “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries, exempting them from liability for third-party content, as long as they observe due diligence and act upon lawful directions. However, Section 79(3)(b) removes this protection if the platform fails to remove “unlawful information” upon actual knowledge or government notification.
X argues that this clause is now being misused by the government to compel platforms to take down content without following procedures laid out under Section 69A, which governs official content blocking.
Judicial Safeguards under Shreya Singhal Case
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A and interpreted Section 69A narrowly. The Court mandated that any content removal must:
- Be based on grounds under Article 19(2)
- Follow a written, reasoned order
- Be challengeable through judicial review
X contends that the government’s repeated takedown orders violate this ruling by invoking Section 79(3)(b) without transparency, notice, or judicial oversight.
Constitutional and Governance Concerns
- Violation of Free Speech: Arbitrary takedown orders risk chilling effect on speech and weaken Article 19(1)(a) protections.
- Absence of Procedural Due Process: Section 79(3)(b), when used coercively, bypasses checks guaranteed under Section 69A.
- Centralisation of Content Control: The government’s “Sahyog” portal enables mass takedowns with minimal oversight, leading to fears of censorship.
Additionally, emerging technologies like AI-generated responses (e.g., Grok) complicate content attribution, raising new questions about intermediary responsibilities.
Conclusion
The controversy around Section 79 highlights the tension between national interest and digital freedom. While regulating harmful content is important, it must be done within a constitutional framework. Strengthening intermediary guidelines with transparent processes and independent review mechanisms is essential to safeguard both public order and democratic rights.