0% found this document useful (0 votes)
52 views20 pages

IT Law Project

The project report discusses the role and liability of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000 in India, highlighting their importance in the digital ecosystem and the legal framework governing their responsibilities. It explains the safe harbor provisions, due diligence requirements, and the conditions under which intermediaries can be held liable for third-party content, including recent amendments and landmark court cases. The report also outlines exemptions from liability and the implications of non-compliance with legal obligations.

Uploaded by

Iman singla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
52 views20 pages

IT Law Project

The project report discusses the role and liability of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000 in India, highlighting their importance in the digital ecosystem and the legal framework governing their responsibilities. It explains the safe harbor provisions, due diligence requirements, and the conditions under which intermediaries can be held liable for third-party content, including recent amendments and landmark court cases. The report also outlines exemptions from liability and the implications of non-compliance with legal obligations.

Uploaded by

Iman singla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY,CHANDIGARH

The Project Report On Topic


INTERMEDIARIES & THEIR LIABILIY
UNDER IT ACT, 2000

Is Submitted As Per The Curriculum Of B.com


LLB (Hons.) In
the Subject Of

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:


DR. ANJU CHAUDHARY IMAN SINGLA
ROLL NO: 236/20

1
SEMESTER- 10
B.COM LLB (SEC-D)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of
guidance and assistance from many people and I am extremely
fortunate to have got this all along the completion of my project
report. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and I
would never forget to thank them.

I take this opportunity to record deep sense of gratitude to my teacher


DR. ANJU CHAUDHARY, University Institute of Legal studies,
Chandigarh for her perfect unmatched guidance, encouragement,
valuable suggestions and efforts made during the preparation of this
project and during her lectures which enabled me to complete this
project successfully on the topic.

INTERMEDIARIES & THEIR LIABILITY UNDER IT


ACT, 2000

I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the Department of Legal


Studies, from where I have learnt the basics of Law and whose
informal discussions, intellectual support helped me in the entire
duration of this work.

IMAN SINGLA
ROLL NO: 236/20
SEMESTER-10
B.COM LLB(SEC-D)

2
INDEX
 Introduction………………………………………………..
4
 Intermediary……………………………………………….
5
 Functioning of different types of
Intermediaries………….6
 Liability Of
Intermediary………………………………….7
 Exemption from
Liability………………………………...11
 Conclusion………………………………………………..1
8
 Bibliography……………………………………………...1
9

3
INTRODUCTION

The rapid advancement of digital technology has revolutionized the way people
communicate, conduct business, and access information. The internet serves as a vast
network where users can exchange data instantly, but this transformation has also led to
concerns regarding the regulation of online activities. In this digital ecosystem,
intermediaries play a crucial role by providing platforms that facilitate communication, e-
commerce, and content sharing. However, the increasing misuse of digital platforms for
cybercrimes, defamation, copyright infringement, and the spread of fake news has raised
legal questions about the liability of intermediaries for third-party content.

To address these concerns, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) was enacted as
the primary legislation governing cyber activities in India. Among its various provisions,
Section 79 of the IT Act provides a "safe harbor" to intermediaries, shielding them from
liability for content uploaded by users, provided they adhere to due diligence requirements.
This means that intermediaries such as internet service providers (ISPs), social media
platforms, e-commerce websites, search engines, and payment gateways are generally
not responsible for user-generated content unless they actively participate in illegal activities
or fail to comply with government directives.

The concept of intermediary liability has been a subject of global legal debates,
particularly in light of challenges posed by hate speech, data privacy breaches, and

4
intellectual property violations. The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India1 case was a
landmark judgment in India that clarified the responsibilities of intermediaries, ruling that
they are only required to remove objectionable content when notified by a court or
government authority. This judgment helped establish a legal framework that balances
freedom of speech and expression with the need for accountability.

To further strengthen digital governance, the Indian government introduced the


Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021. These rules impose stricter obligations on intermediaries, particularly
Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) like WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter,
requiring them to appoint grievance officers, enable traceability of the "first originator" of
messages, and remove unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving an order. Failure to
comply with these rules may result in the loss of their "safe harbor" protection, making them
legally liable for third-party content.

INTERMEDIARY

In the knowledge society of the 21st-century computers, the internet and ICTs lave played
very important roles in our lives. The Internet is providing several services and has become
an important source of information. However, for receiving such services including
information, it is important to have access to the internet which is provided by the
intermediary. An intermediary is a person (commercial or non-commercial entity) that
connects the user to the internet. However under the Information Technology Act, 2000 the
term intermediary has been defined as follows:

"Intermediary" [Section 2(1)(w)]: “intermediary", with respect to any particular electronic


records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that
record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes:

i. telecom service providers;( Vodafone, Reliance Jio.)


ii. network service providers;
iii. internet service providers; (Jio, Airtel, BSNL)
iv. web hosting service providers;( YouTube, Netflix.)

1
AIR 2015 SC 1523

5
v. search engines;( Google, Bing.)
vi. online payment sites;( Paytm, Razorpay, Google Pay.)
vii. online-auction sites,
viii. online-market places,( Amazon, Flipkart, eBay.)
ix. cyber cafes.( Public internet access points.)

Therefore after the Amendment, the meaning of the intermediary has been widened, and
now it includes so many other entities such as telecom service providers: network service
providers: internet service providers: Webhosting service provider; search engines; online
payment sites; online auction sites; online market places; and cybercafés which are
providing different types of services.

Therefore, the intermediary is a wider term and it includes ISP also.

FUNCTIONING OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF


INTERMEDIARIES

When a computer wants to send a message to another computer across the internet, it first
connects to a small local ISP through a modem. A local ISP can be a company that simply
provides Internet service or a corporation with a network that supplies services to its
employees. Then these local ISPs are further connected to the regional ISPs which operate
at the regional level. These regional ISPs are then connected to the National ISP's which
when interconnected together form the Internet backbone. They are also known as Network
Service Providers (NSPs).

The different NSPs that together consist of the Internet backbone, carry the heaviest amount
of traffic on the Internet. An Internet backbone is a high-speed network that connects many
regional and local networks. Other computers then connect to these regional and local
networks to access the internet.

6
LIABILITY OF INTERMEDIARY
In today's paperless environment there are various persons or authorities who act as
intermediaries and their main role is to manage the computer system and networks and the
internet. They also provide various services such as providing service places, hosting client
web pages, etc. However the role of intermediaries is also risky. For example, the clients
web page which is hosted on the intermediary server may contain obscene material violating
the rights of other persons. In such a scenario a role of intermediary is just to relay third
party information to the public and and except for making reasonable efforts, he can't do
anything to prevent its access and hence should not be made liable when he makes
reasonable efforts to prevent the access.

1. Violation of Due Diligence Requirements by Intermediaries[Section 79(2)(c)]

Intermediaries operating in India are required to comply with due diligence obligations
under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021 to ensure their platforms are not misused for illegal activities. Failure to

7
adhere to these obligations can lead to the loss of safe harbor protection under Section 79 of
the IT Act, 2000, making them liable for third-party content. The due diligence
requirements mandate that intermediaries publish clear terms of service, explicitly
prohibiting the upload of unlawful content such as defamatory, obscene, or hate-inciting
material. They must also implement an efficient grievance redressal mechanism,
appointing a Grievance Officer responsible for addressing user complaints within a
specified timeframe. Additionally, intermediaries, particularly Significant Social Media
Intermediaries (SSMIs) like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter, must ensure traceability of
the first originator of a message in case of legal investigations related to misinformation,
cybercrimes, or national security threats. Another key requirement is the removal of
unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification.
Failure to remove such content may lead to civil and criminal liabilities, as intermediaries
can be considered complicit in the dissemination of illegal material.

2. Failure to Remove Objectionable Content (Actual Knowledge Doctrine)[Section


79(3)(b)]

Failure to remove objectionable content under the Actual Knowledge Doctrine occurs
when an intermediary, despite being made aware of unlawful material on its platform, does
not take timely and appropriate action to remove or disable access to such content. The
Actual Knowledge Doctrine stems from Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, which
states that an intermediary loses its safe harbour protection if it does not act upon receiving
"actual knowledge" of illegal content through a court order or a government notification.
This principle was significantly interpreted in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India2 where the Supreme Court clarified that intermediaries are not required to
proactively monitor content but must remove it when officially notified. The rationale
behind this doctrine is to prevent misuse of digital platforms for activities such as
defamation, fake news, hate speech, obscene content, copyright violations, and threats
to national security. However, the challenge lies in determining the threshold of actual
knowledge, as intermediaries often deal with millions of user-generated posts daily. Failure
to act upon official takedown notices can lead to civil and criminal liability, including
fines, legal actions, or even imprisonment for responsible officials under provisions such
as Section 67 of the IT Act (publishing obscene material).
2
AIR 2015 SC 1523

8
3. Facilitating Cybercrime or Unlawful Activities by Intermediaries[Section 79(3)
(a)]

Intermediaries can be held liable if they knowingly facilitate or enable cybercrime or


unlawful activities through their platforms. While the IT Act, 2000 provides a safe harbor
under Section 79, this protection is lost if an intermediary is found to be actively involved
in illegal activities or fails to take necessary preventive measures despite having
knowledge of such offenses. Facilitating cybercrimes can occur in several ways, such as
allowing the dissemination of child pornography, enabling phishing scams, hosting
counterfeit products, promoting online gambling, or aiding the spread of terrorist
propaganda. If an intermediary does not act against such unlawful activities despite clear
evidence or government orders, it may face civil and criminal liability under various
provisions of the IT Act. For instance, under Section 67 of the IT Act, an intermediary
hosting obscene or sexually explicit material can be punished with imprisonment of up to
five years and a fine of ₹10 lakh. Similarly, under Section 66F, any intermediary that
knowingly allows its platform to be used for cyber terrorism can face life imprisonment.
In the Avnish Bajaj v. State(Bazee.com case)3, the CEO of an e-commerce platform was
arrested because the website allowed the sale of pornographic content featuring minors,
even though he was not directly involved in the transaction. This case highlighted that
intermediaries must implement strict monitoring and content moderation policies to
prevent their platforms from being used for illegal activities. Under the Intermediary
Guidelines, 2021, platforms must deploy automated filtering mechanisms to detect and
prevent the spread of unlawful content. Failure to comply with these obligations can result
in monetary penalties, legal prosecution, and loss of intermediary protection, holding
them accountable for cybercrimes committed through their services.

4. Compensation for failure to protect data[Section 43A]4

Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or
information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in
implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby
causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to

3
No.2284 of 2004
4
Inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2006

9
pay damages by way of compensation, not exceeding five crore rupees, to the person so
affected.

5. Violating the directions to preserve and retain information by intermediaries


[Section 67C]5

Any intermediary, who is so directed to preserve any information shall preserve and retain
as may be specified for such duration and in such manner and format as prescribed by the
Government. If he intentionally or knowingly contravenes this direction then he shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also be
liable to fine.

6. Violating the directions of the Central Government, State Government by a


subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information. [Section 69]6

Where the intermediary is directed by the Central Government, State Government or any
officer specially authorized by the Central Government, State Government, through any
agency of the Government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt any information generated,
transmitted, stored, and received in any computer resource then such intermediary shall
extend all facilities and technical assistance. Where intermediary or any person who fails to
assist such agency shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

7. Violating the directions Central Government or any of its officer specially


authorised by it to block any information for access by the public [Section 69A]7

Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it direct any
agency of the Government or intermediary to block any information generated, transmitted,
received, stored, or hosted in any computer resource and the intermediary who fails to
comply with such direction then he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

5
Inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
6
Substituted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
7
Inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

10
8. Violating the directions Central Government to monitor and collect traffic data
or information [Section 69B]8

Where the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise any
agency of the Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated,
transmitted, received, or stored in any computer resource. Accordingly, the intermediary or
any person-in-charge of the computer resource when called upon by the agency which has
been so authorized must provide technical assistance and extend all facilities to such agency
to enable online access or to secure and provide online access to the computer resource
generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such traffic data or information. Where any
intermediary who intentionally or knowingly violates such direction then he shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which any extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.

9. Violating the directions of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team


(ICERT) [Section 70B]9

For performing its function, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team may call for
information and give direction to the service provides. intermediaries, data centers, body
corporate, and any other person. Where any service provider, intermediaries, data centers,
body corporate or person who fails to provide the information called for or comply with the
direction shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or
with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.

Therefore, generally, intermediaries are not liable for third party information because they
merely relay third party information to the public. However, where certain conditions as laid
down under law are fulfilled then ISP (intermediary) can be made liable for any unlawful
act which also includes IPR infringement.

EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY OF


INTERMEDIARY IN CERTAIN CASES [SECTION 79 ]

8
Inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
9
Inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

11
It is important to note that the intermediary shall not be liable under this Information
Technology Act, 2000, rules or regulations made thereunder for any third party information
or data or communication link made available or hosted by him. However, the following
conditions must be fulfilled:

1. The function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication


system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or
temporarily stored or hosted; or
2. The intermediary does not:
a. Initiate the transmission,
b. Select the receiver of the transmission; and
c. Select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
3. The intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act
and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe on
his behalf.

Due Diligence

Today Social media is increasingly becoming an important part of an individual’s life.


Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad while announcing new social media rules in India
revealed that Whatsapp is the most used app in India. In India, Whatsapp has over 53 crores
users, followed by Youtube which has over 44.8 crores users in India, Facebook has 41
crores users, Instagram has 21 crores users, while Twitter has 1.5 crores users. 10 Where a
huge population is dependent on social media platforms then the social media intermediaries
must follow certain norms to overcome new and emerging challenges such as persistent
spreading of fake and other contents that spread communal violence or threaten the dignity
of women and pose a threat to security or integrity of India.

In such a situation it is of utmost importance to make a distinction between relevant or


useful content and abusive content and fake news. For this, Social media are given the duty
10
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/government-reveals-stats-on-social-media-users-
whatsapp-leads-while-youtube-beats-facebook-instagram-1773021-2021-02-25 accessed on 21.12.21.

12
to observe due diligence while permitting the users to upload any information or content.
Earlier, Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 were applicable.
However, there were certain loopholes in these Rules and it was not possible to take action
against the "first originator of information" a social media intermediaries always claimed
that it would be a violation of the privacy of the uploader.

Accordingly, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media


Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 were formulated by the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MeitY) in February 2021. The main aim of these Rules was to make social
media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram more accountable and
responsible for the content hosted on their platform. Significantly, these Intermediary Rules
2021, were further amended by The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022 and the Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2023 to cover online
games and online money games.

As observed in the landmark judgment of My Space Inc. v Super Cassettes Industries


Ltd11. Myspace was the owner and operator of a social media website www.myspace.com,
where a third party could upload and view content, no changes were made in the content
uploaded by the users, except additional advertisements being added. The court was to
decide that whenever any third-party uploads objectionable content, what is the extent of
liability of the platform and whether due diligence was enough in the publication of rules,
privacy policy, regulations, and user agreement. The court in evaluating the extent of
liability of the intermediary, decided on the concept of knowledge as mentioned under
Section 79(3) sub-clause (b) of the IT Act was knowledge based on specific information
given by the person whose work was being infringed by the content uploaded on Myspace,
which practically translated to the owner of a work providing specific URL addressed where
the infringing content was located.

Due diligence to be observed by an intermediary [Rule 3 of the Information


Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021)

11
FAO(OS) 540/2011, (2011) 47 PTC 1 (Del)

13
An intermediary, including social media intermediary, significant social media intermediary
and online gaming intermediary, shall observe the following due diligence while
discharging its duties:

 Publication of rules, regulations privacy policy by the intermediary [Rule 3(1)(a)]


 Duty of the intermediary to inform the user of its computer resource not to host,
display, upload, or modify any objectionable information [Rule 3(1)(b)]
 Duty of the intermediary to periodically inform the user of its computer resource that
in case of non-compliance it has right to terminate the access [Rule 3(1)(c)]
 Duty of the intermediary not to host or upload the objectionable information Rule
3(1)(d)]
 Duty of the intermediary to remove the objectionable information after receiving the
order of the Court or any authority
 Temporary or transient or intermediate storage of information shall not amount to
hosting, storing, or publishing any information [Rule 3(1)(e)]
 Duty of the intermediary to periodically inform the user of its Rules, regulation,
[Rule 3(1)(f)]
 Duty to preserve information and associated records for one hundred and eighty days
for investigation purposes where any information removed[Rule 3(1)(g)]
 Duty to preserve information received at the time of registration after withdrawal or
cancellation of registration [Rule 3(I)(h)]
 Duty to preserve take all reasonable measures under Security Rules 2011[Rule 3(1)
(i)]
 Duty to provide information within 72 hours or 24 hours in online games where
demanded[Rule 3(1)(j)]
 Duty not to knowingly deploy or install or modify the technical configuration of
computer resource when it amounts to a violation of the law[Rule 3(1)(k)]
 Duty to report cyber security Incidents[Rule 3(1)(l)]
 Duty to take all reasonable measures to ensure accessibility of its services [Rule 3(1)
(m)]
 Duty to ensure registration of online game [Rule 3(1)(mn)]12

12
Inserted by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2023 w.cf 6.4.2023

14
 The intermediary shall respect all the rights accorded to the citizens under he
Constitution, including in the articles 14, 19 and 21. [Rule 3(1)(l)]

Grievance redressal mechanism of intermediary [Rule 3(2)]

The intermediary shall prominently publish on its website, mobile based application, or
both, as the case may be, the name of the Grievance Officer and his contact details as well
as mechanism by which a user or a victim may take a complaint against violation of the
provisions of this rule or any other matters pertaining to the computer resources made
available by it, and the Grievance Officer shall:

 acknowledge the complaint within twenty-four hours and dispose off such complaint
within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt;
 receive and acknowledge any order, notice, or direction issued by the Appropriate
Government, any competent authority, or a court of competent jurisdiction.

Additional due diligence to be observed by significant social media intermediary


(SSMI):[Rule 4]

Before we understand due diligence to be observed by the SSMI it is pertinent to understand


these two expressions.

Significant Social Media Intermediary (SSMI): It means an SM intermediary having


registered users in India above such threshold as notified by the Central Government.
Accordingly, on 26.02.2021, the Central Government issued a notification stating that an
intermediary will be considered to be an SSMI if it has more than 5 million (50 lakh)
registered users on its platform. As per the threshold, Twitter does qualify as an SSMI.
Significantly, WhatsApp (53 crore users), YouTube (44.8 crore users), Facebook (41 crore
subscribers), Instagram (21 crore client), Twitter(1.75 crore account holders) are covered
under SSMI.

Social Media Intermediary: It means an intermediary which primarily and solely enables the
online interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share,
disseminate, modify or access information using its services. For example, Facebook,
WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram.

Appointment of certain officers and contact persons

15
All the significant social media intermediaries shall appoint the following officers:

1. Chief Compliance Officer: Chief Compliance Officer means key managerial personnel or
other senior employee of SSMI who is residing in India. He is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the IT Act and rules made there under.

2. Nodal Contact Person: Nodal Contact Person means an employee of a SSMI who is
resident in India. He is responsible for 24x7 coordination with law enforcement agencies
and officers for ensuring compliance to their orders.

3. Resident Grievance Officer: He is an employee of the SSMI who is resident in India. He


is responsible for performing functions relating to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 i.e. with regard to
the grievance redressal mechanism.

4. Publish periodic compliance report every month mentioning the details of complaints
received and action taken thereon, and the number of specific communication links or parts
of information that the intermediary has removed or disabled access to in pursuance of any
proactive monitoring conducted by using automated tools or any other relevant information
as may be specified.

Regulation of Online curated content commonly known as Over the Top (OTT) [Part
III of the Rules, 2021]

Apart from regulating the intermediaries the new Rules regulate online curated content
commonly known as Over the Top (OTT) Platforms. These platforms are service providers
that offer viewers access to movies, TV shows, and other media directly through the
Internet, bypassing cable or satellite systems. OTT services can be accessed through
internet-connected devices like computers, smartphones, settop boxes, and smart TVs. In
India, OTT platforms are generally called 'publishers of online curated content.
Significantly, online curated content is audio-visual content such as films, web-series,
podcasts, etc., which are available to the viewers demand but not limited through
subscription by OTT platforms. Here, "On demand" means a system where a user is enabled
to access, at a time chosen by them, a content in electronic form, which is transmitted over a
computer resource and is selected by the user.

Examples of Popular video-on-demand services in India are Disney Hot Amazon Prime
Video, Sony LIV etc.

16
The question regarding regulating OTT started in January 2021 with The Tandav
Controversy:13

The "Tandav" web series was released on the OTT Platform Amazon Prime Video on
January 15, 2021. Immediately upon release, the controversy started as the series has been
criticised by various sections of Indian society on the ground that some parts of the series
were objectionable as hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. Accordingly, various
complaints were filed in various states and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
intervened and raised these concerns to the makers of the series.

In an RTI reply by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting as per the complaints by
private individuals, advocates, non-governmental organisations and series of political parties
series are hurting religious sentiments and are anti-dalit. The makers made an unconditional
apology and also removed objectionable part of the series. As the complainants were not
dissatisfied by the action taken so multiple FIRs across states were filed against the series'
directors, producers, and rectors as well as the India head of Amazon Prime Video's original
content, Aparna Purohit.

After this controversy, demands started for censorship and criminal penalties for OTT
platforms in India for uploading objectionable information. Finally, on February 25, 2021
the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021 were notified by the Government containing rules for regulating OTT.

1. Code of ethics for publishers of News and current affairs:


 Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India under the Press
Council Act, 1978;
 Programme Code under section 5 of the Cable Television Networks
Regulation)
2. Code of ethics for publisher of Online curated content (OTT)

General Principle

a. A publisher shall not transmit or publish or exhibit any any content which is
prohibited under any law for the time being in force or has been prohibitel by any
court of competent jurisdiction.
13
The Tandav Controversy: A case study available at https://internetfreedom.in/tandav-case-study/accessed
on 10.11.2022.

17
b. A publisher shall take into consideration the following factors, when deciding to
feature or transmit or publish or exhibit any content, after duly considering the
implications of any content as falling under the following categories, and shall
exercise due caution and discretion in relation to the same:
 content which affects the sovereignty and integrity of India;
 content which threatens, endangers or jeopardises the security of the State:
 content which is detrimental to India's friendly relations with foreign countries;
 content which is likely to incite violence or disturbs the maintenance of public
order.
c. A publisher shall take into consideration India's multi-racial and multi religious
context and exercise due caution and discretion when featuring the activities, beliefs,
practices, or views of any racial or religious group.

Content Classification:

Depending upon age:

a. All content transmitted or published or exhibited by a publisher of online curated


content shall be classified, based on the nature and type of content, into the
following rating categories:
 Online curated content which is suitable for all shall be classified as –U rating
 Online curated content can be viewed by a person under the age of 7 years with
parental guidance, and shall be classified as -U/A 7+"rating
 Online curated content that is suitable a person under the age of 13 years with
parental guidance, shall be classified as -U/A 13+1 rating:
 Online curated content that can be viewed by a person under the age 16 years with
parental guidance, shall be classified as U/A 16+1 rating
 Online curated content which is restricted to adults shall be classified -Al rating

Classification Depending upon other factors:

(1) The Content may be classified on the basis of (1) Themes messages; (ii) Violence;
(iii) Nudity; (iv) Sex (v) Language (vi) Drug and substance abuse, and (vi) Horror
described in the Schedule, as may be modified from time to time by the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting.

18
Implementation of Rules 2021

Social Media intermediaries were given three months to comply with the new rules. The
government on May 26 issued a fresh notice to all social media intermediaries seeking
details on the status of compliance with the new rules that came into effect on that day.
Companies like Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, Koo, Sharechat, and Linkedin
have shared details with Meity as per the requirement of the new norms. Twitter sought an
extension of the compliance window and called for constructive dialogue and a
collaborative approach from the government to safeguard the freedom of expression of the
public.

CONCLUSION

The concept of intermediaries and their liability under the Information Technology Act,
2000 (IT Act, 2000) is crucial in regulating the digital ecosystem. Intermediaries, such as
internet service providers, social media platforms, e-commerce websites, and search
engines, play a vital role in enabling digital interactions. However, given their role in
hosting and transmitting third-party content, determining their liability for unlawful
activities has been a subject of legal scrutiny.

The IT Act, 2000, particularly Section 79, provides safe harbour protection to
intermediaries, shielding them from liability for third-party content as long as they act as
passive facilitators and comply with due diligence requirements. However, intermediaries
can lose this protection if they actively participate in unlawful activities, fail to remove
illegal content upon receiving actual knowledge (court order or government notification), or
do not follow compliance guidelines under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Judicial decisions, such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India14, have further clarified that
intermediaries are not obligated to remove content unless legally mandated. Cases like the
Bazee.com case and MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd 15. demonstrate the
evolving nature of intermediary liability and the need for stricter content moderation
policies.

14
AIR 2015 SC 1523
15
FAO(OS) 540/2011, (2011) 47 PTC 1 (Del)

19
In an era of rising cybercrimes, misinformation, and data privacy concerns, intermediary
liability continues to evolve. While the IT Act, 2000 provides a balanced approach,
emerging challenges may lead to further amendments, imposing greater responsibility on
digital platforms. The future of intermediary regulation in India will require a harmonized
approach between freedom of expression, data security, and accountability, ensuring a safer
and more transparent digital environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/regulating-digital-intermediaries-it-act-and-the-new-
intermediary-guidelines/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/intermediary-liability-analysis-of-the-effect-of-the-shreya-
singhal-judgment-on-internet-intermediaries-in-india/
 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15983/1/
the_information_technology_act%2C_2008.pdf
 https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-super-cassettes-industries-ltd-v-myspace-inc/
 Cyber Laws & Information Technology, Dr. Jyoti Rattan, Bharat Law House Pvt.
Ltd., 9th Edition(BOOK)

20

You might also like