Why in news?
Reports of a possible review of safe-harbour protection have brought the legal responsibilities of social media platforms into focus. Open magazine reported on 7 November 2026 that the Union government was considering changes to the protection available under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It described the discussions as preliminary. The provision gives eligible online intermediaries conditional protection from liability for material supplied by other people. The debate concerns how that protection should apply to platforms whose systems also recommend and amplify content.
Who is an intermediary?
An intermediary receives, stores or transmits an electronic record on someone else’s behalf, or provides a service connected with it. The Act’s definition covers services such as internet access, web hosting, search engines and online marketplaces. Their functions vary, so the legal question includes what role a service performs in relation to the particular information.
For example, a user may create a video and upload it to a hosting platform. The user supplies the content; the platform stores it and makes it accessible. Section 79 addresses the intermediary’s liability for such third-party information. This distinction allows the law to examine the uploader’s conduct and the host’s role separately.
How the protection works
Section 79 links the exemption to conditions concerning the intermediary’s function and conduct. These include the role it plays in transmission and whether it initiates the transmission, chooses its recipient, or selects or changes the information. The provision also requires due diligence: care in carrying out duties under the Act and compliance with the applicable government-prescribed guidelines.
The exemption is unavailable when an intermediary conspires in, assists or induces the unlawful act. Section 79 also addresses failure to act expeditiously against unlawful material after the legally relevant knowledge or notification. The platform’s response and the legal basis of a direction therefore matter when assessing its protection.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court interpreted the knowledge requirement in Section 79(3)(b). It linked the removal obligation to a court order or notification by the appropriate government or its agency. The order or notification must concern grounds permitted by Article 19(2), which sets out the constitutional grounds for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech.
The Court explained the difficulty of asking intermediaries to judge the legality of millions of private requests. Its interpretation connects the statutory removal duty with legally grounded directions. This provides a defined basis for action while preserving the constitutional limits on restrictions.
Why recommendation systems enter the debate
A recommendation system ranks or selects material for a user’s feed. That choice influences visibility, so the present debate extends beyond the storage of a post. Reported government discussions question how responsibility should reflect this active role in distributing content.
Any reform must specify the conduct it regulates, the duties platforms must perform and the safeguards for users. Clear duties can support action against unlawful content. Clear grounds and review procedures also help users contest mistaken removals. These design choices affect both platform accountability and the ability to share lawful information.
Conclusion
Safe harbour rests on a conditional exemption tied to the intermediary’s role and conduct. The proposed review raises a practical question: how should responsibility for hosting and recommending other people’s content be defined within India’s legal and constitutional framework?