The Government of India in 2025 defended its decision to reduce safe harbour protections for Internet intermediaries. It introduced stricter content removal via the Sahyog Portal. This move sparked legal challenges from social media platforms like X. The government argues that algorithmic content curation differs fundamentally from traditional editorial control. This distinction justifies greater regulatory intervention to curb harmful or unlawful content online.
Algorithmic Curation Versus Traditional Media
The government marks that automated algorithms operate at vast scale and speed. Unlike newspaper editors or TV producers, algorithms decide what content to amplify without human judgment. These systems lack transparency and can promote extreme or false information rapidly. Traditional media had institutional gatekeepers who exercised some quality control. This model limited the spread of harmful content, a control absent in current online platforms.
Legal Framework and Section 79 of the IT Act
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides conditional safe harbour protection to intermediaries. Platforms are shielded from liability if they act quickly to remove flagged content. However, if intermediaries ignore government notices, this protection can be withdrawn. The government uses this provision to enforce content takedowns via the Sahyog Portal. This approach differs from Section 69A, which authorises blocking orders only for narrower categories like national security or public order.
Sahyog Portal and Platform Compliance
As of March 2025, 38 major IT intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and LinkedIn have integrated with the Sahyog Portal. Meta Inc, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, allows API-based integration but has not fully onboarded. The platform contests the government’s use of Section 79 for content removal notices, arguing that only Section 69A empowers blocking orders. The government maintains a broader interpretation to tackle unlawful content under multiple laws.
Challenges of Anonymity and Amplification Online
Online anonymity and pseudonymity shield users from accountability. This encourages more extreme speech than traditional licensed media where identities are known. Algorithms can amplify certain posts beyond organic sharing limits. This targeted exposure is unique to social media and can influence public opinion or incite unrest. The government stresses the need to protect society and national security from such risks.
Balancing Freedom of Expression and Public Interest
The government’s stance emphasises that freedom of expression must be balanced with societal and state interests. Content that threatens public order, safety, or national security requires regulation. The legal framework aims to prevent misuse of online platforms for spreading misinformation or inciting violence. The debate continues over the limits of government control and the protection of digital rights.
Questions for UPSC:
- Discuss the challenges posed by algorithmic content curation on social media platforms in the context of freedom of speech and regulation.
- Critically examine the role of Internet intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the implications of safe harbour provisions.
- Explain the significance of Sections 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act in regulating online content and their impact on digital governance.
- With suitable examples, discuss the balance between national security and individual privacy rights in the age of digital communication.
