Answer

Digital platforms encompass social media, OTT services, and online news, playing a vital role in information dissemination and entertainment. India, with 881 million internet users (TRAI, 2023), has seen increasing government scrutiny over content regulation. Recent actions, such as banning 150+ apps citing security concerns and OTT content takedowns under IT Rules, 2021, highlight the growing debate on free speech, regulation, and digital sovereignty.

Implications of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act on intermediary liability and content regulation in India

Impact on Free Speech and Platform Accountability

• Chilling Effect on Expression: The broad application of Section 79(3)(b) without safeguards can lead to over-censorship, where platforms remove lawful content out of fear of government action.
• Unclear Moderation Standards: The lack of transparency in government takedown orders creates inconsistent content moderation policies, where platforms struggle to balance compliance and free expression.
• Reduces judicial oversight: Unlike Section 69A, which mandates government reasoning for blocking orders, Section 79 now allows content removal with no mandatory judicial review.
  For example: The launch of Sahyog portal (2024) allows multiple authorities to upload blocking orders, making the process less transparent.
• Platform Accountability Uncertainty: The AI-generated content debate under Section 79 leaves platforms unsure of liability, which could lead to either excessive removals or lack of responsibility.
  For example: X’s AI chatbot Grok 3 is facing scrutiny for generating politically sensitive responses, raising legal ambiguities about AI accountability under existing laws.
• Potential for Government Overreach: The ability to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) without transparency increases the risk of political misuse, stifling dissenting voices

Way Ahead

• Strengthen Legal Safeguards: The government should amend Section 79 to introduce mandatory transparency requirements, ensuring that all takedown orders have publicly recorded justifications.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 69A mandates recording reasons, and a similar framework should be extended to Section 79 for consistency.
• Establish Independent Oversight Mechanisms: An autonomous digital content regulatory body should oversee content removal requests, preventing executive overreach and ensuring due process.
  For example: The UK’s Online Safety Bill proposes an independent regulator to oversee content moderation, ensuring government requests align with free speech principles.
• Clarify AI Liability Framework: Specific legal provisions must define whether platforms are liable for AI-generated content, ensuring clear accountability without stifling AI advancements.
  For example: The EU AI Act introduces guidelines to hold companies accountable for harmful AI content, setting a model for India to regulate platforms responsibly.
• Promote Platform Self-Regulation: Platforms should develop transparent content moderation policies and publish regular reports on takedown requests, ensuring public scrutiny.
  For example: Meta releases Transparency Reports detailing government content removal requests, helping maintain accountability and trust in its moderation practices.
• Encourage Judicial Review of Content Takedowns: Courts should play a greater role in reviewing takedown requests, ensuring that only content violating Article 19(2) is removed.

Platform neutrality can be maintained while respecting ethical norms and national security by fortifying Section 79 with precise regulations, open enforcement, and a strong grievance procedure. Promoting an accountable yet open internet ecosystem in India requires a multi-stakeholder strategy that combines judicial oversight, self-regulation, and legal protections.