Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Under Section 79 of the IT Act

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives an "intermediary" (a social media site, a messaging app, a search engine, an internet service provider) protection from liability for content posted by its users. That protection, called safe harbour, is conditional: the platform must play a passive role, observe the due diligence rules made by the Central Government, and remove unlawful material quickly once it gets actual knowledge through a court order or a lawful government notice. Lose any of these conditions and the platform can be held liable like any other wrongdoer.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for cyber law and constitutional law papers, and for any citizen who has wondered why a platform takes down some posts and not others. If a fake profile of a college student in Nagercoil is circulating online, Section 79 and the rules under it decide what the platform must do and how fast.

What does Section 79 actually say?

The section has three parts, and examiners expect you to know all three.

• Sub-section (1), the shield: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force", but subject to sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary is not liable for any third party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by it.
• Sub-section (2), the conditions: the intermediary's role must be limited to providing access to a communication system or transmitting, temporarily storing or hosting information; it must not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or select or modify the information; and it must observe due diligence and the guidelines prescribed by the Central Government.
• Sub-section (3), the exceptions: protection is lost if the intermediary conspires, abets, aids or induces the unlawful act, or if, on receiving actual knowledge or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the material without vitiating the evidence.

The Explanation defines "third party information" as information dealt with by an intermediary in its capacity as an intermediary. The present form of Section 79 came in through the 2008 amendment to the Act. The non obstante opening is what makes the shield work against other laws, including criminal defamation.

How has the Supreme Court read Section 79?

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

This is the case every answer must cite. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, upheld Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules, and read down Section 79(3)(b). "Actual knowledge" now means knowledge received through a court order, or a notification by the appropriate Government or its agency, and the unlawful acts covered must fall within the grounds in Article 19(2). Rule 3(4) of the 2011 Intermediary Guidelines was read down in the same way. The reasoning was practical: a platform handling millions of requests cannot be asked to judge for itself which private complaints are legally valid.

Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries (2019)

Decided on 10 December 2019, this case arose from a criminal defamation complaint filed before the 2008 amendment came into force. The Court held that the old Section 79 protected an intermediary only against liability under the IT Act itself, not against offences under the Indian Penal Code such as defamation (IPC Sections 499 and 500, now Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The substituted section, with its non obstante clause, is wider. Use this case to show students that the date of the act matters.

What are the due diligence rules in 2026?

The conditions in Section 79(2)(c) are filled in by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended several times. The main points a reader should know today:

1. Grievance officer: every intermediary must have one. Under the 2021 Rules a complaint had to be acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. The amendment notified on 10 February 2026, in force from 20 February 2026, cut the resolution period to 7 days.
2. Grievance Appellate Committee: added by the amendment notified on 28 October 2022. A user unhappy with the grievance officer's decision can appeal within 30 days, and the committee is to endeavour to decide within 30 calendar days.
3. Significant social media intermediaries: large platforms must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person for 24x7 coordination with law enforcement, and a Resident Grievance Officer, all resident in India.
4. Takedown on actual knowledge, Rule 3(1)(d): the amendment in force from 15 November 2025 says only an officer not below Joint Secretary rank (or Director where no Joint Secretary is appointed), or for police a specially authorised officer not below Deputy Inspector General, can issue removal intimations. Each must state the legal basis, the unlawful act and the exact URL, and all such intimations are reviewed monthly by an officer not below Secretary rank. The 2026 amendment reduced the time to comply from 36 hours to 3 hours.
5. Intimate images and impersonation: complaints about content showing a person's private areas, nudity or sexual acts, or impersonation including morphed images, were to be acted on within 24 hours under the 2021 Rules. Reports on the 2026 amendment say this window for such specified content complaints is now 2 hours, so confirm the exact wording in the amended rule before quoting it.
6. Synthetically generated information: the 2026 amendment requires AI-generated content to carry a prominent label backed by metadata, and states that removing such content using reasonable technical measures does not by itself breach the Section 79(2) conditions.

Rules change often in this area. Before you rely on a time limit in practice or in a moot, check the current consolidated text on the MeitY website or the Gazette.

Is the Shreya Singhal reading still the law?

For the Supreme Court, yes. But in X Corp v. Union of India, decided on 24 September 2025, the Karnataka High Court dismissed X's challenge to the Centre's Sahyog portal, which routes takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b). The Court said Shreya Singhal dealt with the 2011 Rules and the 2021 Rules need their own reading, and held that Article 19 rights belong to citizens, so a foreign company cannot invoke them. This is a High Court ruling, not a Supreme Court one. Students should present it as the current debate (Section 69A blocking with its procedural safeguards, versus Section 79(3)(b) notices) and check whether an appeal is pending before writing that the question is settled.

What should a citizen do if harmful content about them is online?

• Use the platform's own reporting tool first and keep a screenshot with the URL, date and time.
• Write to the platform's grievance officer, whose details must be published on the platform. Note the date you complained.
• If there is no response or you disagree, appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days.
• If a crime is involved (cheating, stalking, threats, sexual images), report it to the police or the national cyber crime reporting portal. Electronic records are proved in court under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

A tenant in Madurai who finds a defamatory post about her shop can send a grievance to the platform the same day. If the platform ignores a court order to remove it, the platform itself steps outside the safe harbour.

How do you write about Section 79 in an exam?

1. Define "intermediary" and explain why safe harbour exists (platforms are conduits, not authors).
2. Set out Section 79(1), (2) and (3) in your own words.
3. Explain Shreya Singhal (2015) and the meaning of "actual knowledge".
4. Add Google India v. Visakha Industries (2019) on the pre-amendment position.
5. Bring in the IT Rules, 2021 with the 2022, 2025 and 2026 amendments, citing at least two time limits.
6. Close with a critical point: the tension between quick takedowns and free speech, using X Corp (Karnataka High Court, 2025).

Students who want hands-on work on cyber complaints can volunteer with the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• PIB press release on the IT Amendment Rules, 2025: officer rank, reasoned intimations and monthly review under Rule 3(1)(d), in force from 15 November 2025.
• PIB press release on the IT Rules, 2021: grievance officer timelines and duties of significant social media intermediaries.
• LiveLaw summary of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: the Supreme Court's reading of Section 79(3)(b).
• LiveLaw report on Google India v. Visakha Industries: Supreme Court judgment of 10 December 2019.
• Bar and Bench on the IT Amendment Rules, 2026: reduced takedown and grievance timelines from 20 February 2026.
• LiveLaw report on X Corp v. Union of India: Karnataka High Court ruling on the Sahyog portal, 24 September 2025.