Why in News?
The Government of India defended its expanded use of Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 before the Karnataka High Court, especially in light of content regulation practices involving digital intermediaries like social media platforms. The legal challenge was initiated by X (formerly Twitter).
Legal Framework: Section 79 vs Section 69A of the IT Act
-
Section 79 – Safe Harbour Provision:
-
-
Grants immunity to intermediaries from liability for third-party content.
-
Protection is conditional—withdrawn if intermediaries fail to comply with government takedown requests.
-
The Centre now interprets this section broadly to tackle a wider range of unlawful content.
-
-
Section 69A – Content Blocking Provision:
-
-
Empowers the government to block online content only on specific grounds (e.g., national security, public order).
-
Must follow procedural safeguards under the IT Rules, 2009.
-
-
Key Legal Challenge:
-
-
X argues that Section 79 is being misused to issue blocking orders, which are only permitted under Section 69A.
-
Calls the Sahyog Portal a “censorship portal” without proper safeguards.
-
The Sahyog Portal – Role and Controversy:
-
Purpose and Development:
-
-
Created under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
-
Aims to coordinate takedown of unlawful online content swiftly.
-
-
Intermediary Participation:
-
-
As of March 2025, 38 intermediaries onboarded including Google, Amazon, Apple, Telegram, YouTube.
-
Meta (Facebook, Instagram) has enabled API access.
-
X has refused onboarding, citing legal overreach and lack of safeguards.
-
Government’s Justification for Expanding Section 79:
-
Unique Nature of Digital Platforms:
-
-
Algorithmic curation is not equivalent to editorial discretion in newspapers or TV.
-
Algorithms automatically amplify content without oversight.
-
-
Concerns Raised:
-
-
Lack of transparency and accountability in algorithmic operations.
-
Anonymity and pseudonymity on platforms increase the risk of incitement, hate speech, and misinformation.
-
Traditional media had built-in gatekeeping; social media lacks such regulation.
-
-
Regulatory Argument:
-
-
Section 79 needs broader interpretation to address emerging digital threats not covered under Section 69A.
-
Constitutional and Societal Implications:
-
Free Speech vs Reasonable Restrictions:
-
-
Section 69A operates under Article 19(2) of the Constitution (reasonable restrictions).
-
The government argues that Section 79 can be used to target all forms of unlawful content, not just those limited to Article 19(2).
-
-
Balancing Rights:
-
-
Emphasizes the need to balance individual freedom of expression with the collective right to public safety, order, and national security.
-
Conclusion: A Pivotal Legal Moment
-
The case marks a defining moment in Indian digital jurisprudence.
-
It will clarify:
-
Limits of safe harbour protections under Section 79.
-
The scope of governmental powers over content takedown.
-
The responsibility of intermediaries in curbing harmful algorithmic content.
-
The constitutional boundaries of free speech in the digital age.
-
