Corporate Technology Responsibilities Of Intermediaries
1. Intermediaries — Who and What? (Legal Context)
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), an intermediary means any person or entity that on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits electronic records or provides a service with respect to that record — for example telecom service providers, internet service providers, search engines, web‑hosting platforms, online marketplaces, payment gateways, social media platforms, etc.
Corporate & Technological Responsibilities
Intermediaries have specific duties and liabilities that arise when they operate digital platforms that host or transport content created by third parties. These responsibilities include:
Due Diligence and Safe Harbour Compliance
Under Section 79 of the IT Act, intermediaries are generally not liable for third‑party content if they act as neutral conduits and observe due diligence obligations prescribed by law.
“Due diligence” requires that intermediaries publish clear rules, terms of service, privacy policies, inform users of prohibited content, and comply with government or court orders to remove unlawful information.
Notification and Takedown Obligations
Upon receiving actual knowledge via a court order or government notification, intermediaries must expeditiously remove or disable access to unlawful content (usually within 36 hours under the Rules).
Grievance Redressal & Compliance Officers
Significant social media intermediaries must appoint compliance and grievance officers in India and actively manage user complaints about prohibited content.
Retention & Preservation of Information
Intermediaries must preserve user data and related information for investigation and compliance purposes, enabling lawful disclosure to authorities where required.
These responsibilities are both corporate (policies, officers, procedures) and technological (systems to identify/disable content, data preservation, traceability).
2. Key Case Laws on Intermediaries’ Responsibilities
(1) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2015)
Landmark decision on intermediary liability and due process — the Supreme Court read down Section 79 of the IT Act and the related rules, holding that intermediaries are required to take down content only upon receipt of a court order or appropriate government notification.
The judgment clarified that intermediaries do not have to proactively monitor or censor content, but must act once a valid order is served.
This case significantly balanced internet free speech with the responsibilities of intermediaries.
(2) Mouthshut.com vs. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2015)
Challenged the intermediary guidelines and Section 66A of the IT Act, seeking clarity on platform responsibilities.
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional and also read down intermediary liability rules, reinforcing the standard that intermediaries cannot be held liable for third‑party speech unless due process via competent authority orders is followed.
(3) Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2016‑17)
Delhi High Court held that intermediaries are liable under copyright law only when they have “actual knowledge” of infringement, not mere general awareness of infringing content.
It strengthened the safe harbour protection by clarifying that intermediaries are not required to screen all user content proactively, but must act once actual knowledge is established.
(4) Ramkumar v. Union of India (Madras High Court, 2025)
The Madras High Court emphasised the social responsibility of intermediaries to address harmful content (in this case involving alleged child sexual content), directing authorities to ensure its removal.
This case underlines that intermediaries and regulators must work together to protect vulnerable groups and comply with both technological and corporate responsibility where content is harmful.
(5) Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (Bombay High Court, 2024)
This case challenged the constitutionality of amendments to intermediary rules that imposed new obligations, such as a government‑appointed “fact‑checking unit” targeting political speech.
The Bombay High Court (split decision) held that certain amendments were beyond the scope of the IT Act and violated constitutional protections, highlighting the tension between intermediary obligations and free speech rights.
(6) Avnish Bajaj v. State (Bazee.com Case) (Early Intermediary Liability Precedent)
In one of the earliest catalysts for intermediary liability jurisprudence, the CEO of the auction platform Bazee.com was arrested after objectionable content was hosted on the site.
Although not a clean judicial precedent on safe harbour, this case influenced later interpretation of intermediary responsibilities and the need for clear legal protections under Section 79 of the IT Act.
3. What These Cases Teach About Responsibilities
(A) Safe Harbour is Not Absolute
Intermediaries enjoy protection under Section 79 only if they:
Do not initiate, select or modify third‑party transmission,
Observe statutory due diligence,
Act on proper notice (e.g., court/government order).
Cases like Shreya Singhal and Myspace illustrate the conditional nature of safe harbour.
(B) Corporate Tech Obligations
Intermediaries must implement systems and policies to:
Comply with data retention and preservation norms,
Deploy mechanisms to process takedown notices quickly,
Appoint officers for compliance and grievance redressal,
Use technology responsibly without over‑censoring lawful content.
4. Conclusion
In India, corporate and technological responsibilities of intermediaries arise from:
The IT Act and Intermediary Rules (2021),
Judicial interpretation of these provisions,
The need to strike a balance between free expression and lawful regulation.
Intermediaries are obligated to adopt due diligence procedures, grievance mechanisms, and technical systems for content moderation, while only being required to act upon valid orders or notifications from lawful authorities. Failure to comply may lead to loss of statutory protection and potential liability.
RELATED Blog
comments