Intermediary

Polity & Governance glossary

Also called: Social media intermediary · Topic: Transparency, Accountability and e-Governance · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

An intermediary is an online platform, such as a social media site, that stores or carries content posted by other people (third-party content) but does not create that content itself. Under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, it gets safe harbour, meaning it is not legally liable for what its users post. It keeps this protection only if it follows the due-diligence duties in the IT Rules, 2021 and acts on lawful takedown orders from the government or a court.

The concept matters because it decides who answers for unlawful online speech. It also decides how much power the State has over what citizens can see, so it ties directly to Article 19(1)(a), free speech.

Explanation

How safe harbour works

  • The basic deal: the platform is treated like a carrier, not an author.
  • If a user posts something unlawful, the user is liable, not the platform.

  • In return, the platform must follow the rules and remove content when lawfully told to.

  • The rulebook: the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 set the due-diligence duties. These rules were made by the executive under the IT Act, so they are delegated legislation (detailed rules made by the government under powers given by an Act of Parliament).

  • Losing protection: under Section 79(3)(b), a platform loses safe harbour if it does not act on a government notice about unlawful content.
  • Losing safe harbour means the platform can be held liable for the user's post.

Two routes the government uses to get content removed

Route How it works Safeguard
Section 69A (blocking power) The government orders that content be blocked A committee examines each order, and the reasons are written down
Section 79(3)(b) (notice route) A ministry sends a notice. If the platform ignores it, it risks losing safe harbour No committee review. Many ministries can send notices through the Sahyog portal
  • The Sahyog portal was built by the Ministry of Home Affairs (I4C), not by MeitY.
  • X has argued that ministries use Sahyog notices to get around the safeguards of Section 69A.

Steps and time limits for a takedown

  1. An order is issued: a government or court order flags content as unlawful.

  2. The platform must remove it: the February 2026 amendment cut the time limit from 36 hours to 3 hours. - Later reports say the limit is 2 hours for 'sensitive' matters. Check the Gazette before quoting this figure.

  3. If the platform does not comply: it risks losing safe harbour.

  4. The user's remedy: an appeal to a Grievance Appellate Committee (set up in 2022 under the IT Rules) or a petition in a High Court.

Limits and problems

  • Pressure to over-remove:
  • Missing a deadline can cost a platform its safe harbour.
  • Wrongly removing a lawful post costs it almost nothing.

  • So when a platform is unsure, it removes the post.

  • Automated moderation: short deadlines leave no time for a person to review content, so algorithms decide. Satire, news and protest posts get caught.

  • Secrecy: the Blocking Rules, 2009 keep blocking requests and actions confidential. A user often sees only "Your post is unavailable in India", which does not say who ordered the removal or why.

In the Constitution and practice

  • Constitutional base:
  • Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech.
  • Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on stated grounds only, such as sovereignty, security of the State and public order.

  • Every takedown must fit within these grounds.

  • Statute: the IT Act, 2000:

  • s.69A: blocking orders;
  • s.79: safe harbour;
  • s.87: rule-making power;

  • s.69: lawful interception.

  • Nodal ministry: MeitY administers the intermediary rules. Part III of the IT Rules, 2021 (the ethics code for OTT and digital news) is administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
  • The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act.
  • It upheld Section 69A, because that section has procedural safeguards.

  • It read down Section 79, so a platform has to act on a court order or a government notice, not on any private complaint.

  • X Corp v. Union of India (Karnataka HC, 24 September 2025):

  • Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed X's petition against the Sahyog portal. He said social media cannot be left in "anarchic freedom".

  • X appealed. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru asked the Centre to respond. No final ruling has been reported.

  • Blocking has grown every year:

  • URLs (web links) blocked under the IT Act: 1,385 in 2017, 2,799 in 2018 and 3,635 in 2019.

  • 9,845 URLs had been blocked on MeitY directions up to October 2024.

  • Related law: under the DPDP Act, 2023 (s.37), the Centre can block a platform on the advice of the Data Protection Board.

Don't confuse with

  • Publisher or content creator: creates the content and is liable for it directly. An intermediary only hosts or carries other people's content and is protected while it follows the rules.
  • Section 69A blocking order vs Section 79(3)(b) notice:
  • A 69A order passes committee review with written reasons.

  • A 79(3)(b) notice, for example one sent through Sahyog, has no such review. It works by threatening the loss of safe harbour.

  • Advisory vs binding order: a MeitY advisory is formally not binding, but platforms often treat it as an order. A 69A order is legally binding.

  • Section 66A vs Section 69A: 66A was struck down in Shreya Singhal (2015). 69A was upheld.

Prelims Hooks

  • Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 gives intermediaries safe harbour. Section 69A gives the government its blocking power.
  • Shreya Singhal v. UoI (2015) struck down s.66A, upheld s.69A and read down s.79.
  • MeitY administers the intermediary rules. The Sahyog portal was built by the MHA (I4C), not MeitY. This is a common trap.
  • The February 2026 amendment cut the takedown window for government or court orders from 36 hours to 3 hours.
  • Grievance Appellate Committees (2022) hear user appeals against platform decisions under the IT Rules.
  • The Karnataka HC upheld the Sahyog portal on 24 September 2025 (Justice M. Nagaprasanna).

Mains Points

  • Speed against safeguards:
  • Fast removal is justified for deepfakes, impersonation and incitement to violence.
  • The real problem is speed without a record. A 3-hour window leaves no time for review, so the Shreya Singhal safeguards exist only on paper.

  • Reform: keep short deadlines for these harms and give political and news content a longer window, so a person can review it first.

  • Transparency and accountability:

  • Notices that say only "unavailable in India" hide who ordered the removal and why.
  • UNESCO's Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms (2023) say users must be told the reason for removal, and moderation tools should be audited externally.

  • Reform: send all government removal orders through Section 69A and require notices to name the source of the order.

  • Executive power through rules: binding takedown duties that come through advisories and amendments to the IT Rules raise questions about the limits of delegated legislation. A power this important over speech should be debated in Parliament.

Read more