The Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), S. Krishnan, has clarified the framework in which content is removed from social media platforms in India. He emphasised that the government does not regularly censor content and restricts its actions to specific situations as defined by law. His remarks came during a discussion on content moderation practices, particularly in light of ongoing negotiations with Meta regarding adherence to Indian legal requirements.

According to Krishnan, while concerns regarding social media impact are widespread across democracies, India has established a legal architecture that has received favourable views from some countries in the European Union. He pointed out the need to differentiate between content blocked by government directives and those removed by the platforms themselves, thereby highlighting the structured approach adopted by India.

Krishnan further indicated that a series of consultations have taken place, with two meetings held thus far with Meta representatives. The focus has been on ensuring that social media companies comply with Indian regulations instead of relying solely on their global policies.

Legal Framework Governing Content Blocking

Under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, Krishnan stated that the government’s power to block online content is seldom exercised. He specified four primary grounds for which content might be blocked: national security, defence, public order, and maintaining friendly relations with other states. This reflects the limitations imposed by Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution concerning freedom of speech.

Krishnan elaborated that mere perceptions of obscenity or defamation are insufficient, and stringent criteria must be met for invoking Section 69A. He cited historical precedents, including specific operations where content blocking was deemed necessary due to severe circumstances.

Contrarily, the majority of content takedowns occur administratively through social media firms that act based on their community guidelines, rather than as a result of governmental intervention. Krishnan highlighted that more than ninety-nine per cent of content removals are initiated by the platforms themselves.

Processing of Flagged Illegal Content

In cases where content is suspected to breach Indian laws, Krishnan explained that governmental agencies can send notices to intermediary platforms. These notifications inform the platforms about potential legal repercussions for both the content creator and the intermediary if corrective actions are not taken.

Platforms then face a decision: either to comply and remove the flagged content or to contest it, potentially leading to legal proceedings. Still, Krishnan noted that these government notices only account for approximately 0.1 per cent of all takedowns, indicating that the vast majority of removals are independent of government actions.

Stressing the importance of understanding India’s diverse cultural context, Krishnan argued that global social media firms must adapt their content moderation practices to suit local norms and values. He asserted that companies cannot rely on a universal standard when handling culturally sensitive material, especially regarding serious issues like sexual abuse and violence.

Protection Mechanisms within India’s Framework

Krishnan reiterated that the overarching aim of India’s content removal framework is to safeguard citizens from harmful and unlawful material while ensuring minimal governmental interference. He stressed the significance of recognising the distinction between government-mandated removals and content deleted by platforms themselves in discussions surrounding censorship claims in India.

Furthermore, he drew attention to the pressing matter of online financial fraud, including schemes exploiting fake endorsements from public figures to mislead users. This represents an additional layer of complexity within the current landscape of social media governance in India.

Overall, Krishnan’s statements reflect a commitment to balancing user protection with the need for a transparent process that limits government intervention to legally justified situations.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share