!Joey

Statement: Proposed withdrawal of safe harbour under Section 79 5 November 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation is alarmed by the Indian Express that the Ministry of Electronics and IT has begun discussions on stripping social media platforms of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. Nobody should mistake this for a move against Big Tech for it is a move against the people who use these platforms. Safe harbour is not a gift to Meta, Google or X. It is the legal foundation that lets ordinary Indians speak online without a platform's lawyers deciding in advance whether their post is worth the risk and taking it down. If it is taken away, and every platform becomes liable for every post, comment and video. The rational response for any company is to remove anything that might draw a complaint, a notice or a summons. Criticism of the government, reporting on protests, satire, and the speech of people without lawyers will be the first casualties which are already being censored by automated filters implemented pursuant to the IT Rules, 2021. The Supreme Court recognised exactly this in Shreya Singhal (2015), which is why it read down Section 79(3)(b) to require a court order or a lawful government direction before platforms must act. The timing tells its own story as the report says that MEITY’s rethink was shaped by a view within government that platform algorithms have favoured Opposition and anti-establishment narratives over official messaging, and by the role of Instagram during the student protests in July. In other words, the complaint is not that platforms host too much illegal content but it is that they host too much content the government dislikes. This is also the latest step in an escalation that has been building for years. The 2023 Fact Check Unit amendment tried to make the government the arbiter of truth about itself, until the Bombay High Court struck it down. The Sahyog portal has turned Section 79(3)(b) into a parallel, opaque takedown channel that sidesteps the safeguards of Section 69A, a practice X is now challenging in court. In August, a Parliamentary Standing Committee gave Mark Zuckerberg three days to apologise personally for the brief removal of the Prime Minister's video or face the loss of safe harbour. Subsequently advisories were issued on October 8, 2026 and October 10, 2026 pressuring digital platforms to implement pro-active censorship through, “enhanced due diligence”. Safe harbour was never meant to be a bargaining chip that MEITY waves at a company to extract compliance. There are real problems on these platforms such as child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate imagery and deepfakes. The Supreme Court's observations in Just Rights for Children Alliance on October 15 deserve a serious answer. But the answer is targeted, rights-respecting obligations with independent oversight, transparency about takedowns, and a grievance process that works for users. It is not a liability regime that pushes platforms to delete first and never ask. Nor is it a rule that platforms must clear product changes with the government before shipping them, which would hand the state a license raj over the design of the services Indians use every day. Any change of this scale must go through Parliament, with a published draft, a genuine consultation and a full debate. It cannot be settled in closed-door meetings between the Ministry and a handful of companies. What IFF will do IFF will send a detailed representation to the Ministry of Electronics and IT setting out why the proposed changes to Section 79 are unconstitutional and unworkable, and what a rights-respecting approach to platform accountability should look like. We will also write to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology. We are filing RTI applications with MeitY seeking the minutes, agendas, attendance lists and file notings of every meeting held on the review of safe harbour, including the meetings with Meta and other platforms in July and August, and the basis for the Ministry's assessment of how platform algorithms treat government and Opposition content. The public has a right to know who is in the room when the rules of their speech are being rewritten. We will publish what we receive, and we invite other civil society groups, journalists and platform users to join us in asking the Ministry to put any proposal to open consultation before it goes anywhere near Parliament.