The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has summoned top global executives from Meta—including Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan—for high-level meetings in New Delhi. The government is seeking detailed explanations regarding the platform’s algorithmic moderation, alleged suppression of content, and failure to expeditiously remove Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).
MeitY has specifically requested the presence of technical representatives from Instagram to examine how the platform’s recommendation engines and content management systems operate.
Key Areas of Concern Flagged by the Government
Officials have outlined multiple operational and legal issues requiring Meta’s response:
-
Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM): The government emphasized that the presence of CSAM carries strict statutory implications. Failure to detect, report, and remove such material immediately puts the company’s legal immunity at risk.
-
Content Moderation Consistency: Concerns were raised following the temporary removal and subsequent reinstatement of a video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Meta later acknowledged the restriction was applied in error.
-
Algorithmic Suppression Allegations: Student organizers from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) alleged that posts documenting recent demonstrations and police actions were shadowbanned or removed across Meta platforms.
-
Public Order Maintenance: The ministry flagged instances where posts allegedly violating Meta’s own Community Standards remained live despite posing public order risks.
Safe Harbour and Legal Framework
The core legal lever in the government’s communication involves Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which grants social media intermediaries “safe harbour”—protecting them from legal liability for user-generated content.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act: States that safe harbour protection is revoked if an intermediary fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to unlawful content after acquiring “actual knowledge” through valid legal orders.
-
Section 69A of the IT Act: Empowers the Central Government to issue blocking orders on grounds aligned with Article 19(2) of the Constitution, including public order, state security, and sovereignty.
-
Landmark Precedent (2015 Supreme Court Ruling): Established that “actual knowledge” under Section 79 requires a formal court order or an executive direction issued under Section 69A, preventing private platforms from acting as arbitrary judges of free expression.
Broader Enforcement Actions
The summons to Meta coincides with heightened regulatory scrutiny across tech platforms operating in India. Delhi Police recently issued notices to X (formerly Twitter) under IT Rules, directing the platform to:
-
Disable specific URLs connected to the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protests.
-
Preserve account logs, metadata, and subscriber information for ongoing investigations into manipulated and defamatory content targeting constitutional authorities.
Legal experts and civil liberties groups, including the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), have emphasized that executive takedown directives must remain transparent, legally reasoned, and strictly compliant with statutory safeguards to prevent overreach.
