By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Can Social Media Platforms Be Held Liable For Harmful Content? Section 79 Explained
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > Acts > Can Social Media Platforms Be Held Liable For Harmful Content? Section 79 Explained
Acts

Can Social Media Platforms Be Held Liable For Harmful Content? Section 79 Explained

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: May 2, 2025 8:39 pm
Amna Kabeer
3 months ago
Share
Can Platforms Be Held Liable For Harmful Content - IT Act - Cyber Crime
Can Platforms Be Held Liable For Harmful Content - IT Act - Cyber Crime
SHARE


Introduction


Section 79 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000, outlines when intermediaries are exempt from liability. This exemption covers third-party content they transmit or host. However, this protection is conditional.

Contents
IntroductionWhat Section 79(1) Of IT Act States?What Are The Limitations Under Section 79(3) Of IT Act?Who Is An Intermediary?What Are The Broad Role of Intermediaries?Debate on Safe Harbour for Social Media PlatformsWhy Musk-Owned X Challenges Section 79 of IT Act?Conclusion


What Section 79(1) Of IT Act States?


Intermediaries are not liable for third-party information, data, or communication links hosted or made available by them. This applies despite any other law in force, but only if they meet the conditions in sub-sections (2) and (3). The immunity under Section 79(1) applies only when the intermediary plays a neutral and technical role. If they have knowledge or control over the content, they cannot claim protection. Section 79 offers “safe harbour” to intermediaries, but only under strict conditions. To retain this protection, they must stay passive, act responsibly, and respond quickly to unlawful content.
To claim immunity, intermediaries must:
Only provide access to a communication system.

Not initiate the transmission.

Do not choose the recipient.

Not modify the content.

Follow due diligence.

Comply with government-prescribed guidelines.

What Are The Limitations Under Section 79(3) Of IT Act?

Intermediaries lose protection if they:
Help commit an unlawful act by aiding, abetting, or inducing it.

Fail to remove unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or official notice.

Do not act quickly to block access to illegal material.

Section 79(3)(b) introduces the “notice and takedown” rule. Intermediaries must act promptly after being informed of unlawful content.


Who Is An Intermediary?


The term “intermediary” under Indian law plays a key role in internet regulation. Section 2(w) of the IT Act defines who qualifies as an intermediary and outlines their responsibilities. Understanding this term is crucial in the context of online safety, fake news, and content liability.
Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines an intermediary as anyone who, on behalf of another, receives, stores, or transmits data or provides related services.
This includes:
Telecom service providers

Web-hosting services

Search engines

Online payment platforms

E-commerce websites

Cyber cafes

What Are The Broad Role of Intermediaries?


Intermediaries have a crucial role in the digital ecosystem. Yet, many misuse the legal protection granted to them. As fake news and harmful content grow, India needs stricter laws and clearer obligations for these platforms to ensure accountability and user safety.
Conspiracy or Abetment: Intermediaries can be held liable if they conspire, abet, or aid in the commission of unlawful acts facilitated through their platforms. This provision aims to prevent intermediaries from actively participating in or enabling illegal activities through their services.
Failure to Remove Unlawful Content: Intermediaries are obligated to expeditiously remove or disable access to unlawful material upon receiving actual knowledge or notification from the appropriate government or its agency. Failure to comply with this obligation can result in the intermediary being held liable for facilitating the dissemination of illegal content.
Third-Party Information: This refers to any data or content shared, posted, or stored by users through intermediary platforms. The intermediary does not own this content but helps transmit or host it.
Intermediaries help users access and use the internet. Their tasks include:
Hosting content

Storing user data

Enabling communication

Aggregating or collecting information

Facilitating content sharing and access
The definition is not limited to digital platforms. Even cyber cafes fall under this category.

Debate on Safe Harbour for Social Media Platforms


The ‘safe harbour’ provision for social media platforms has sparked widespread debate. This legal shield affects platforms like Facebook, Twitter, e-commerce sites, and AI-driven services.
Safe harbour, under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, protects intermediaries from liability for user-generated content. This means platforms are not responsible for what users post.
The government argues that platforms should not get a free pass. Safe harbour cannot justify hosting harmful or illegal content. Authorities insist on stricter rules to enforce accountability.
The IT Rules, 2021, made it mandatory for platforms to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Resident Grievance Officer (RGO), and Nodal Contact Person. These roles ensure better content moderation and faster responses to complaints.
Under the proposed Digital India legislation, each type of intermediary will follow specific rules. The focus is on fact-checking and preventing data misuse. Platforms will now be responsible for content violations and cybercrimes on their networks.
The government aims to curb the “weaponisation of misinformation.” Deep Fakes are a major concern. These AI-generated videos can mimic real people, violate privacy, and spread false narratives.
Other harmful practices include:
Doxxing: Public exposure of private information.

Phishing: Fraudulent attempts to steal personal data and financial details.

Why Musk-Owned X Challenges Section 79 of IT Act?


Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has legally questioned Section 79 of India’s Information Technology Act. The company filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the law’s application and its impact on digital platforms.
X argues that the law suppresses free speech and forces platforms to act as censors. The company believes the rules under Section 79(3)(b) violate constitutional rights, especially Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech.
The case is currently before the Karnataka High Court. X seeks clarity on whether platforms can challenge government takedown orders. It also wants protection against penalties for non-compliance with certain directives.
The Indian government has not yet responded formally. However, sources suggest the Ministry of Electronics and IT may defend Section 79 as essential for responsible digital governance.
This case could redefine platform liability in India. If X wins, tech companies may get more freedom to refuse content takedown requests. If it loses, platforms may have to comply with all government orders without question.


Conclusion


In conclusion, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act plays a vital role in shaping digital accountability. It offers conditional immunity to intermediaries, protecting them from liability for third-party content. However, they must act swiftly upon receiving lawful orders or notices. As online platforms grow, debates around their responsibility and regulation continue to evolve. Clearer guidelines and stronger enforcement can ensure a safer digital space. Section 79 remains crucial in balancing free speech and legal compliance in India’s digital ecosystem.

You Might Also Like

PC & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act Offences Are Cognizable, FIR Not Barred By Law: Delhi HC

Exploring India’s Surrogacy Act

Repeat Offenders Under Section Section 31 Of NDPS: Double Trouble Explained

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act: Punishment for Publishing Obscene Content

Corporate Whistle-blowing: Balancing Advantages And Challenges

TAGGED:Information Technology Act 2000IT ActIT Act offencesonline securitySection 79social mediasocial media intermediaries
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Section 10 - The Specific Relief Act - Cases In Which Specific Performance Of Contract Enforceable Section 10 – The Specific Relief Act (SRA) – Cases In Which Specific Performance Of Contract Enforceable.
Next Article Data Breach and Misuse - Cyber Crime - IT Act Will You Be Charged For Data Breach and Misuse: Section 72A Of The IT Act
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
How To File A Complaint under The Domestic Violence Act
Himachal Pradesh High CourtNewsWomen Rights

Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act Only Covers Protection Orders, Not Maintenance: Himachal Pradesh HC

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
2 months ago
Partition Deed Admissible for Collateral Use Despite Being Unregistered: Rajasthan HC
Marriage No Defence Under POCSO Act: Madras HC
Complainant Cannot Demand Hearing in Bail Cases Under Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi HC
CIC Criticizes Election Commission’s Delayed Response to RTI Query on EVMs
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.
login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?