India's framework for blocking online content on social media platforms is not censorship, according to S. Krishnan, Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). Speaking at the Business Today India at 100 event, Krishnan clarified the government's approach, emphasizing that the majority of content removals are initiated by the platforms themselves.
Global Challenges in Content Moderation
Krishnan noted that concerns regarding the impact of social media platforms, including giants like Meta's Facebook and Instagram, are not unique to India. He highlighted that "every major democracy in the world" faces similar challenges in regulating online content. India's legal framework has garnered international attention, with Krishnan mentioning that conversations with the European Union revealed their impression of India's thoughtful and restrained exercise of power in this domain.
Government-Ordered Blocking: Specific Grounds Only
The MeitY Secretary explained that government-ordered content removals constitute only a small fraction of overall takedowns. The power to block content, derived from Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, is invoked under very specific circumstances. These four broad grounds are:
- Security of the state
- Defence of India
- Public order
- Friendly relations with foreign countries
"It is very, very sparingly used, with a great deal of restraint," Krishnan asserted, clarifying that an opinion on content being "obscene" is not sufficient; it must demonstrably fall within one of these legal grounds.
Platforms Lead 99% of Content Removals
Significantly, Krishnan revealed that over 99% of content takedowns occur because social media platforms determine that the content violates their own community guidelines. This underscores that platforms are primarily responsible for moderating content according to their internal rules, rather than direct government directives.
Legal Framework for Unlawful Content
Under India's legal structure, an authorized government agency or official can issue a notice to social media platforms when content is deemed to violate Indian law. Krishnan outlined potential consequences: the individual who posted the content could face criminal charges, and the platform itself might face legal repercussions if it fails to act on the notice. While Section 79 of the IT Act offers intermediaries "safe harbour" protection from liability for third-party content, this protection can be withdrawn if platforms do not comply with lawful government orders to remove illicit material.
Cultural Context is Crucial for Platforms
Krishnan stressed the importance for global social media companies to understand India's diverse cultural and linguistic contexts. He argued against a one-size-fits-all content moderation approach, especially concerning content that may depict violence, sexual abuse, or other harms not immediately evident through a purely visual assessment. "Social media platforms need to be alert to the cultural and linguistic context of respective states," he stated, emphasizing that platforms cannot overlook culturally specific interpretations of harmful content.