Examine the challenges in regulating global social media platforms operating in India, with reference to recent regulatory actions against Meta.

Q. Examine the challenges in regulating global social media platforms operating in India, with reference to recent regulatory actions against Meta. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

India is among the largest user markets for global platforms, yet its regulatory model rests on conditional immunity and self-declared due diligence. MeitY's move to summon Meta over Instagram advertisements promoting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) exposes the structural limits of this design.

Recent regulatory action against Meta - A BBC investigation found paid Instagram ads using terms like "rape video", routing users to Telegram channels selling such material; the IT Minister directed MeitY to summon Meta and seek explanations on ad approval and corrective steps [5]. - In the same period, MeitY questioned Meta over WhatsApp's username feature on fraud risk — reflecting a reactive, notice-driven pattern of oversight [5].

Challenges in regulation - Conditional safe harbour: Section 79, IT Act, 2000 protects intermediaries only if due diligence is observed, but forfeiture is decided case-by-case and post-facto, delaying accountability [1]. - Content-centric rules, monetised gaps: IT Rules, 2021 due-diligence duties — grievance officers, 24-hour removal of sexual content, SSMI obligations — were framed for user-generated content, not for platform-approved advertising, which is curated and revenue-earning [3]. - Weak deterrence: summons and notices are fact-finding, not penal; fines are negligible against global revenues. - Cross-platform and extra-territorial spillover: takedown on one platform fails when distribution migrates to encrypted channels hosted abroad. - Statutory and institutional fragmentation: Section 67B, IT Act and POCSO Act, 2012 (Sections 19–20 reporting duties) apply alongside MeitY's rules, while cybercrime coordination lies with MHA's I4C [1][2]. - Algorithmic opacity: Meta cites AI-based proactive detection, yet ad-review systems remain unaudited by any independent authority.

Regulation thus fails less in intent than in verification and enforcement. The Grievance Appellate Committees introduced by the 2022 amendments show accountability can be deepened incrementally [4]; extending this to a statutory ad-vetting duty, mandatory third-party algorithmic audits and codified safe-harbour forfeiture would make due diligence measurable rather than declaratory. Such calibrated regulation secures both child protection under Article 21 and SDG 16.2, without disrupting India's open internet.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Information Technology Act, 2000 — India Code — Section 79 safe harbour; Section 67B on CSAM 2. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — India Code — Sections 19–20 mandatory reporting duties 3. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — PRS Legislative Research — due diligence, SSMI obligations, 24-hour takedown 4. Government notifies Amendments to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — PIB — Grievance Appellate Committees, enhanced intermediary accountability 5. "Centre set to summon Meta over child sexual abuse advertisements", The Hindu, 4 July 2026 (link not verifiable at time of writing) — BBC report, MeitY summons, WhatsApp username notice