Is safe harbour important for social media?
What is safe harbour?
Safe harbour is a legal concept that protects individual websites that allow third party users to share content from legal liability for any unlawful posts. The concept was put in place in the early years of the internet as a key safeguard to encourage innovation online and prevent website owners from being unfairly hounded for content they had no hand in publishing. The concept of a middleman being responsible for third party content is known as intermediary liability, and safe harbour protects sites, by default, from any criminal action for content hosted by them. In the U.S., safe harbour is enshrined in Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, inserted into the decades-old law in 1996. In India, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, grants intermediaries similar protections.
The protections are not without conditions. In India, if an intermediary receives 'actual knowledge' of illegal content on their website, they lose liability protections under Section 79 if they don't work to take the content down within a certain time period. The Supreme Court has read down 'actual knowledge' to mean a court order or government notification.
Without safe harbour protections, online intermediaries could face tremendous consequences for illegal content. For instance, in 2004, the then head of the website eBay in India was arrested because of a user listing of a disk containing child sex abuse material for sale.
How are intermediary liability protections regulated in India?
While safe harbour does have the conditions described above, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 has put in place additional conditions for platforms to retain protection from intermediary liability. Social media firms need to have a nodal officer, a grievance officer resident in India, and need to periodically submit reports of complaints they receive on content, and action taken against them for this. Different parts of the IT Rules have been challenged in courts in the last few years.
For example, in 2023, the Union government notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, which contained provisions that would strip safe harbour from sites for content that has been notified as 'fake news' by the Press Information Bureau's fact check unit. That amendment was immediately challenged in the Bombay High Court, among others by the comedian Kunal Kamra. Petitioners accused the government of exceeding its authority by designating a fact check unit that could be an arbiter of truth, and putting pressure on social media companies to take content down without following the longer process of sending a notice to users whose content is being removed. The Bombay High Court sided with Mr. Kamra, and the case is being appealed by the government.
Why is the government considering amending the safe harbour clause?
The government has accused foreign social media platforms of flouting Indian laws and acting too slowly on takedown notices. On multiple occasions before Elon Musk acquired Twitter, now known as X, the platform had public confrontations with the Union government regarding orders to hide users' content. X under Mr. Musk has continued to fight the government's right to issue blocking and takedown orders without notice to users at the Karnataka High Court. The Union government has pitched amending safe harbour as a way to get platforms to be more proactive in governing their sites, not just for what they deem to be misinformation, but for AI-generated deepfakes, cyberfrauds and so on. In the U.S., both former President Joe Biden and current President Donald Trump have taken aim at Section 230 for different reasons — Mr. Biden's White House sought to weaken safe harbour protections as a way to make platforms more liable for extremist content, and Mr. Trump for the alleged silencing of conservative voices.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has indicated that it would draft a Digital India Act (DIA) that would incorporate these changes, but the outlines of how safe harbour would change under this proposed law have not yet been revealed. Moreover, no DIA draft law has been released yet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Interpretation of Constitution has to be pragmatic: CJI
Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on Saturday (July 5, 2025) said the interpretation of law or the Constitution has to be "pragmatic" and in a way that suits the needs of society. Speaking at a felicitation organised for him by the Bombay High Court here, he also mentioned that recently he had received complaints about the rude behaviour of "some of the colleagues", and urged the Judges to protect the reputation of the institution. Citing a past Supreme Court judgement, Mr. Gavai said any law or the Constitution has to be interpreted in the context of "problems faced by the present generation." "The interpretation has to be pragmatic. It has to be one that suits the needs of society," he added. Judges are expected to work as per their conscience, the oath of office and law, but "should never be perturbed once the matter is decided", he said. A Judge should cut off his mind from the matter and forget what happens to it thereafter, he added. Talking about the appointment of Judges, the CJI asserted that "at no cost the independence of judiciary shall be compromised". While making appointments either to the Supreme Court or High Courts, the collegium ensures that merit is maintained while there is diversity and inclusiveness, Mr. Gavai said. He complimented the Bombay High Court— where he once practiced as a lawyer and served as a Judge— for its work, and said he feels proud when people appreciate its judgements. The CJI also said that lately he has been "receiving a lot of complaints about the rude behaviour of some of the colleagues." "Being a Judge is not a 10 to 5 job, it's an opportunity to serve society. It is an opportunity to serve the nation," he stressed, and urged the Judges to be "true to their oath and commitment." "Please do not do anything which brings disrepute to this august institution, whose reputation has been so laboriously built by the devotion and dedication of generations of lawyers and generations of Judges," he said. Speaking at another felicitation ceremony later in the evening, the CJI said the Constitution works for every last citizen of the country, be it a Judge, lawyer, an executive or a Parliamentarian. "Let us dedicate our lives to the eradication of all differences, let us give it ourselves to upholding constitutional values, let us give it ourselves towards the fulfilment of our constitutional promises," he added.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Stay polite, it helps everyone's blood pressure: Chief Justice's advice to judges
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai raised concerns over rude conduct by judges in courtrooms and noted that such behaviour towards lawyers and government officials "hardly serves any purpose."Speaking at the launch of live-streaming of Bombay High Court proceedings, the Chief Justice said he feels proud when people praise well-written judgments of the Bombay High Court. However, he also admitted that several complaints regarding the 'rude behaviour' of some of his colleagues have been brought to his attention.'Lately, I have been receiving a lot of complaints regarding rude behaviour from some colleagues. I have always believed that the opportunity to serve as a judge is not a 10-to-5 job. It is an opportunity to serve society and the nation,' said the recalled the words of a senior judge, saying that very few are chosen to serve the nation, and what is required is commitment and dedication to the cause of justice.'Behaving rudely with lawyers or frequently summoning officers to court hardly serves any purpose,' he emphasised.'One should keep the atmosphere in the courtroom pleasant—it helps maintain the blood pressure and diabetes levels of everyone, including judges and lawyers,' he added with a touch of to some judges as 'part-time judges,' the Chief Justice expressed concern: 'Another disturbing piece of news I've been receiving from a bench—which I don't wish to name—is that some judges have been behaving rudely, while others are functioning like part-time judges. If you have taken the oath to serve in this august office, then sitting for just one hour in the first half and again in the second half belittles that oath. You are not being true to it.'He urged such judges to honour their oath, saying, 'Please do not do anything that brings disrepute to this august institution—an institution whose reputation has been painstakingly built over generations by the devotion and dedication of lawyers and judges.'Inviting all to his retirement dinner on November 23 this year, the Chief Justice also addressed the importance of interpreting laws in sync with a changing society.'On the issue of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court had stated that the Constitution is a living, evolving document. Parliament must have the power to amend it to meet the needs of society arising from socio-economic developments. Therefore, when we interpret laws and the Constitution, it must be in the context of present-day challenges. The interpretation must be pragmatic and suited to the needs of society,' he about the new modality introduced by the Supreme Court—where interactions are held before recommending names for judgeships—the CJI said, 'Interaction does help. Recent incidents in some High Courts—fortunately not at the Bombay High Court—have shown that it is possible to assess candidates to some extent. One such incident occurred recently in a neighbouring High Court. I won't share the details, but I urge my colleagues at the Bombay High Court to ensure that such incidents do not take place here, where we have a rich tradition.'Later in the day, at a function organised by the Advocates Association of Western India, the CJI recalled a speech by the late Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, who had warned: 'If you do not eradicate social and economic inequalities, the edifice of democracy that has been so laboriously built will collapse like a house of cards.'Concluding on a hopeful note, the Chief Justice said that things are improving, and that '75 years is not too long for the working of a Constitution.' He affirmed that all three wings—legislative, executive, and judiciary—are working toward achieving social and economic stability.- EndsMust Watch advertisement
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
As UN faces a key vote on expert to protect LGBTQIA rights, will India finally be on the right side?
India's foreign policy faces other test, when it comes to the vote on July 7 during the 59th session of the United Nations' Human Rights Council, when member states will vote on whether to renew the mandate of the first UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This mandate was established in 2016 and renewed in 2019 and 2022 and has been supported by a growing number of states from all regions. The current resolution to renew the mandate was presented by a core group of six Latin American countries – Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay . It was co-sponsored by countries from all regions of the world, including European countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain, African countries such as South Africa and Cabo Verde and Asian countries such as Japan. Asian countries that have voted for the mandate in the past include Nepal, South Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Philippines and Thailand, thereby strongly indicating that for Asia, LGBTQIA rights is no more a zone to be avoided but actively supported. In this trend of increasingly global support (with strong participation from the global south) for the proposition that discrimination and violence on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity have no place in our world, India's voice has been noticeably absent. While India has been a member of the Human Rights Council since 2016, on every resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity, India has unconscionably abstained. Course for the future The argument (though untenable) for abstention in 2016 was that the issue of decriminalisation was sub-judice and hence India could not take a position. However since the decriminalisation decision in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India by the Supreme Court this position cannot be taken anymore. Navtej Johar has made explicit the position of the Supreme Court that 'history owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries' The court also said, 'It is difficult to right the wrongs of history. But we can certainly set the course for the future. That we can do by saying, as I propose to say in this case, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders have a constitutional right to equal citizenship in all its manifestations.' Unfortunately while the Supreme Court has acknowledged discrimination against LGBTQI persons as an egregious wrong, this thinking is yet to influence foreign policy. As such, India inspite of this historic and progressive decision, has chosen to remain mute both in 2019 and 2022 when it came to the resolution for renewing the sexual orientation and gender identity. mandate. This silence of the Indian government is untenable as the judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India has removed any possible legal ambiguity with respect to the fact that LGBTQIA persons are entitled to all human rights under the constitution. Combatting discrimination The mandate of the independent expert is based on the principle of dialogue with both states and civil society and aims to take forward best practices with respect to combatting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Since the post was established, three successive mandate holders have conducted official visits to 11 countries, produced 17 reports documenting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity – including the impact of the criminalisation of same-sex relations between consenting adults, the need to legally recognise a person's gender, and the situation of LGBT persons who are forcibly displaced, among others. They also sent communications documenting allegations of human rights violations to 171 states across all regions. It is of global significance that the mandate be renewed for another three years as so doing will ensure that there will be a spotlight on the discrimination and violence suffered by LGBTQIA persons in United Nations spaces. This has brought global attention to the often invisible suffering imposed on LBGTQIA persons. The mandate will enable LGBTQIA persons to continue to bring attention to egregious human rights violations and amplify the call to end violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This upcoming vote is an opportunity for India to demonstrate a commitment to upholding human rights standards and take on the role of a human rights leader. India, inspite of being the world's largest democracy, has shown little inclination to infuse its constitutional vision, grounded in a strong commitment to civil and political rights, into its foreign policy. This is yet another opportunity to shed that lassitude and stand on the right side of history.
