Nishikant Dubey, a BJP MP and Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications & IT, said that Meta could lose its safe harbour protection [1].
This threat places the social media giant at risk of legal liability for third-party content in India if the government determines the platform is not acting as a neutral intermediary. The dispute centers on the brief removal of a video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi from Facebook.
Dubey said that CEO Mark Zuckerberg must issue a formal apology for the removal within three days [1]. The warning follows accusations of censorship and claims that the platform has been promoting anti-democratic content while suppressing official government messaging [2].
Under Section 79 of the IT Act, safe harbour protection shields intermediaries from being held responsible for content posted by users [2]. However, this protection can be revoked if the platform fails to follow government directives or engages in active editorial control that violates the law.
Dubey highlighted a disparity in reach between different political entities on the platform. He said that a CJP account received 30 million views [3], while a BJP account received only 10 million views [3]. This gap served as the basis for allegations that Meta is intentionally promoting content that opposes the current administration.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee is monitoring the situation to determine if Meta's internal moderation policies constitute a breach of Indian law [1]. If the apology is not issued within the specified window, the committee may pursue further actions to strip the company of its legal immunity [1].
“Meta could lose its ‘safe harbour’ protection under Section 79 of the IT Act”
The potential removal of safe harbour protection represents a significant escalation in the regulatory tension between the Indian government and global tech platforms. If Meta loses this immunity, it could become legally liable for every single piece of user-generated content on its platform, likely forcing the company to implement aggressive preemptive censorship to avoid endless litigation in Indian courts.
