India's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology has demanded a personal apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg for removing a video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The move signals a significant escalation in the tension between the Indian government and global tech giants over content moderation and national sovereignty. By targeting the company's legal protections, the committee is challenging the framework that shields platforms from liability for user-generated content.
During a meeting on Aug. 3, 2026 [1], the committee, chaired by Nishikant Dubey (BJP), called for the removal of Meta’s “safe-harbour” clause. This legal provision typically protects intermediaries from being treated as publishers of the content they host. Dubey said the removal of the video was unjustified and raised concerns about how Meta manages content in India.
Dubey accused the Meta chief of attempting to interfere with the country's stability. "Zuckerberg intends to destabilise India," Dubey said.
The committee's demand for an apology stems from the belief that the takedown of the Prime Minister's video was an overreach of Meta's moderation policies. The panel argues that such actions demonstrate a pattern of behavior that necessitates stricter government oversight of social media platforms.
"Meta must apologise for taking down the video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi," Dubey said.
Beyond the apology, the committee is pushing for a fundamental change in how Meta is classified under Indian law. By seeking the removal of the safe-harbour clause, the panel aims to hold the company more accountable for the material it removes or hosts. "We will seek the removal of the safe‑harbour clause for Meta," Dubey said.
“"Zuckerberg intends to destabilise India."”
This confrontation reflects a broader global trend of governments attempting to curtail the autonomy of big tech platforms. If India successfully removes the safe-harbour protections for Meta, it would create a legal precedent that could make social media companies liable as publishers, significantly increasing their legal risk and potentially forcing them to align more closely with government preferences to avoid litigation.
