New Delhi: The Indian government is considering changes to a key provision of the Information Technology Act that protects social media companies from legal liability for content posted by users. The proposed changes could make platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and X more accountable for the information they recommend and distribute through their services.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is examining whether the legal protection available under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, should be withdrawn or restricted for platforms that use algorithms to influence the visibility and distribution of user generated content.
The discussions are at an exploratory stage, and the government has not finalised the scope of any proposed changes. Any amendment to Section 79 would require changes to the existing law and approval by Parliament.
Section 79 provides what is known as safe harbour protection to online intermediaries. It generally exempts them from legal liability for third party information hosted or transmitted through their services, provided they satisfy the conditions specified under the law and comply with prescribed due diligence requirements.
The provision was introduced to distinguish between companies that simply transmit or host information and those that create or actively participate in unlawful content.
However, the government is examining whether this distinction remains suitable for modern social media platforms. Unlike traditional internet services, major social media companies use algorithms to recommend videos, rank posts, personalise feeds and determine which information receives greater visibility.
Government officials argue that these activities give social media companies an active role in determining what users see. This has raised questions about whether platforms that influence the distribution of information should continue to receive the same legal protection as services that simply transmit messages between users.
Under the proposal being examined, platforms that use algorithms to promote, rank or suppress user generated content could face greater legal responsibility. However, algorithmic recommendations do not automatically remove a platform's existing safe harbour protection under the current law.
The government is also considering whether messaging services that allow direct communication between users, without interfering with the content exchanged, should retain their existing legal protection.
The discussions reportedly form part of a wider review of India's social media regulations. Another proposal under consideration would require major platforms to inform the government before introducing significant changes to their products or services that could affect user safety.
The government is also examining ways to strengthen grievance mechanisms for people affected by deepfakes, sexually explicit material shared without consent and other forms of manipulated or non-consensual images and videos. Such measures could allow affected individuals to approach platforms directly and seek the removal of harmful material.
India has already introduced additional obligations for technology companies through amendments to its Information Technology Rules.
In February 2026, the government notified amendments that introduced further requirements concerning synthetically generated information, including audio, images and videos created or manipulated using artificial intelligence. The changes came into force on February 20 and introduced additional measures against prohibited synthetic content, impersonation and non-consensual imagery.
However, these amendments did not remove the safe harbour protection provided under Section 79. The newly reported proposal would involve a separate and potentially significant change to the legal framework governing online intermediaries.
The latest discussions come amid growing disagreements between the Indian government and major technology companies over their responsibilities and operations in the country.
In July 2026, the government directed WhatsApp to halt the rollout of its planned username feature in India pending consultations. The feature would allow users to contact others through usernames without initially sharing their phone numbers. The government raised concerns about possible impersonation and online fraud.
Another dispute involved a video posted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on July 23, 2026. The video, which addressed students amid protests over examination paper leaks, was temporarily unavailable on Facebook in India. Meta said the restriction had occurred in error and that the video had been restored.
On July 30, IT Secretary S. Krishnan confirmed that the government had summoned Meta executives to seek an explanation. Joel Kaplan, Meta's global affairs president, was among the senior executives involved in the discussions. The company informed the authorities that it had introduced new protocols relating to prominent accounts to prevent similar incidents.
The government has also faced disagreements with X over its content regulation and blocking mechanisms. The company challenged the government's Sahyog system, which facilitates the communication of content blocking directions to online platforms. The Karnataka High Court dismissed X's challenge in September 2025, after which the company filed an appeal.
These developments reflect wider disagreements over how technology companies should respond to government directions and manage content on their platforms. However, there is no confirmation that any of these disputes directly led to the proposed changes to Section 79.
The issue also raises questions about freedom of expression and the responsibilities of digital platforms. In a significant development on October 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of India considered the effectiveness of Section 79 in addressing the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material in a case concerning online child protection. The court discussed the need for proportionate action against regulatory failures and indicated that withdrawing safe harbour protection should be treated as a last resort in serious cases.
In an earlier landmark judgment on March 24, 2015, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined Section 79 and established important safeguards concerning when online intermediaries could be required to remove unlawful content. The judgment addressed the role of court orders and notifications from the appropriate government, while considering constitutional protections for freedom of speech and expression.
Any proposed changes to intermediary liability will therefore need to take account of the existing legal framework and constitutional protections.
The government has yet to publish a formal draft amendment or announce a timetable for introducing legislation. Further discussions and consultations are expected before any final decision is taken.
The proposed review could mark an important change in how India regulates social media companies, particularly those whose algorithms influence the information seen by millions of users. However, the extent of any new legal responsibilities will depend on the final provisions of the proposed amendment.