Who really removes content on social media? MeitY Secretary breaks down system
MeitY Secretary S Krishnan said India uses social media blocking powers only in limited legal circumstances. His remarks come as the government discusses content moderation, deepfakes and algorithms with Meta.
The government does not routinely censor content on social media and uses its power to block online material only in narrowly defined circumstances, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Secretary S Krishnan said, offering a detailed breakdown of India's content-removal framework.
The remarks come amid the government's ongoing discussions with Meta over content moderation, deepfakes and platform algorithms, with sources stressing that its platforms operating in India must comply with Indian laws and regulations rather than rely solely on global content policies.
The two sides have conducted two meetings so far.
Speaking at the Business Today India at 100 event, Krishnan said concerns over social media platforms and their impact on users were being debated across major democracies, including the US, UK, France and Australia.
He said India had developed a legal framework that some countries, including those in the European Union, had viewed positively.
But Krishnan stressed that a distinction needed to be made between government-ordered blocking, action following government notices and takedowns initiated by platforms themselves.
GOVERNMENT BLOCK UNDER SECTION 69A
Krishnan said his power as MeitY Secretary to block content under **Section 69A of the Information Technology Act was used "very, very sparingly" and only on four specific grounds: security of the state, defence of India, public order and friendly relations with foreign countries.
These grounds are a subset of the restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, he said.
"Obscenity and defamatory content and contempt of court are the other three grounds on which we do not use 69A," Krishnan said, stressing that it was not enough for an official to merely consider something obscene or defamatory.
"I have to establish that it's one of these four conditions," he said.
He said there were exceptional circumstances where the power was necessary, citing the situation during Operation Sindoor as an example.
PLATFORMS ACCOUNT FOR BULK REMOVALS
Krishnan said the overwhelming majority of content removals were carried out by social media companies under their own community guidelines rather than at the government's direction.
"Ninety-nine per cent, or more than 99 per cent, of the takedowns actually happen on the basis of the community guidelines of the various social media operators themselves," he said.
He pointed to the monthly transparency reports published by platforms, saying these figures could be independently checked.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ILLEGAL CONTENT FLAGGED?
Krishnan said government authorities can issue notices to intermediaries when content is believed to violate Indian law or applicable guidelines.
Such a notice can inform the platform that the person who posted the material could face prosecution and that the intermediary could potentially face legal consequences if it fails to act.
The platform can then either remove the flagged material or contest the matter and face the applicable legal process, he said. Whether an intermediary ultimately loses its safe-harbour protection is a matter for the courts.
Krishnan estimated that such government notices account for roughly 0.1 per cent of takedowns, still less than 1 per cent of the overall volume.
STRESS TO UNDERSTAND INDIA'S CULTURAL CONTEXT
Krishnan also argued that global social media companies cannot rely exclusively on a standardised, visual approach to content moderation in a country as diverse as India.
Platforms need to take into account the cultural and linguistic context of different states, particularly when dealing with content involving sexual abuse, violence or other forms of harm.
"They can't say, 'We didn't see frontal nudity in this particular content, and therefore, we didn't take it down,' without realising that it is an act of sexual assault or violence which is taking place," he said.
He also pointed to child sexual abuse material, saying there could be no tolerance for such content.
FRAMEWORK TO PROTECT CITIZENS
Krishnan said India's framework was intended to protect citizens from unlawful and harmful content while keeping government intervention limited to specific legal grounds.
He argued that the distinction between government blocking and platform-led moderation was important when assessing claims that India routinely censors social media.
The secretary also flagged the broader challenge posed by online financial fraud, including scams in which fake endorsements by prominent personalities are used to lure users into investment schemes.