BACK TO IT ACT
IT Act 2000AMENDED 2008

Section 79

Exemption from Liability of Intermediary in Certain Cases

THE STATUTE

Original Text

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if — (a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or (b) the intermediary does not — (i) initiate the transmission, (ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and (iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission; (c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.

Simplified

Section 79 is the most commercially significant provision of the IT Act — it determines the liability exposure of every internet platform operating in India. The safe harbour principle: if a platform does not initiate, select, or modify third-party content, and complies with due diligence requirements, it is not liable for what its users post. Without Section 79, every social media platform would be liable for every user's defamatory post, every e-commerce marketplace for every counterfeit product, every email provider for every spam message. The safe harbour would collapse the internet industry. But Section 79(3) removes the safe harbour if the intermediary: (a) conspires, abets, aids, or induces an unlawful act; or (b) fails to remove unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or a court/government notice. This creates the famous 'notice and takedown' duty. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 significantly expanded due diligence obligations: platforms with over 50 lakh users must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person, and a Resident Grievance Officer in India. Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) with 1 crore+ users must additionally enable traceability of message originators — a provision that WhatsApp challenged in court.

Common Queries

An intermediary (social media platform, e-commerce marketplace, ISP, cloud provider) is not liable for third-party content hosted on its platform as long as it does not initiate or modify the content, observes due diligence, and removes content on actual knowledge of its unlawfulness.
Under Section 79(3), an intermediary loses safe harbour if: (a) it conspires, abets, aids, or induces an unlawful act; or (b) it fails to remove unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge through a court or government notice (per Shreya Singhal's reading-down).
Section 81 of the IT Act carves out the Copyright Act — so Section 79's safe harbour does not protect intermediaries from copyright infringement claims. This was confirmed in Myspace v. Super Cassettes (Delhi HC, 2016).
Platforms with 50 lakh+ users must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer in India. Significant Social Media Intermediaries (1 crore+ users) must additionally enable message traceability and publish monthly compliance reports.

Legal Evolution

The original IT Act 2000 had a narrower safe harbour. The 2008 Amendment substantially restructured Section 79 and enabled the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011. The landmark Shreya Singhal judgment (2015) read down Section 79(3)(b): platforms are only required to remove content after receiving actual knowledge through a court order or government notification — not merely on private complaints. This reading protected platforms from being pressured to over-remove content by private parties. The 2021 IT Rules expanded the due diligence framework and created OTT and digital news media compliance regimes, generating extensive litigation.

Key Amendments

2008 Amendment restructured Section 79 and created the modern safe harbour framework.

Shreya Singhal (2015) read down 79(3)(b) — 'actual knowledge' requires court/government order, not private complaint.

IT Rules 2021 added extensive compliance obligations including traceability requirement for SSMIs.

Landmark Precedents

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

(2015) 5 SCC 1
RELEVANCE

Read down Section 79(3)(b) — platforms lose safe harbour only on court or government notice of unlawful content, not private complaints alone.

Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries (2020)

(2020) 4 SCC 162
RELEVANCE

Examined scope of intermediary due diligence obligations and conditions under which safe harbour is lost — important for understanding Section 79 limits.