Technology + Regulatory Hotline: Revised Framework for Takedown Notices to Online Intermediaries

Revised Framework for Takedown Notices to Online Intermediaries

• Framework for takedown notices issued to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) revised.
• Amendment to be effective from 15 November 2025.
• Only specific ranks of officers of the Government are authorized to issue notifications.
• Notifications to include certain mandatory details and to be reviewed on a monthly basis.

Background

On October 22, 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 (Amendment Rules).¹ The Amendment Rules substitute Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021).

Rule 3(1)(d)² relates to the due diligence obligation of intermediaries to take down any unlawful information upon receiving ‘actual knowledge’ of such content being hosted on their platform in the form of (i) an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or (ii) a notification from an Appropriate Government³ or its agency (Government). Meeting this obligation, among others under the IT Rules, 2021, is essential for an intermediary to avail ‘safe harbour’ (i.e., protection from liability arising from third party content hosted on its platform).⁴

The Amendment Rules appear to have been introduced in response to intermediaries’ concerns over frequently receiving overly broad and vague takedown notices from various Government agencies or officials whose legal authority to issue such notices was unclear. These concerns were also recently raised before the Karnataka High Court, when X (formerly Twitter) challenged the Government’s use of the Sahyog Portal⁵ to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act in X Corp v Union of India (2025).⁶

For context, Section 69-A of the IT Act allows the Government to issue orders to block access to any information on the internet, only on the basis of specific grounds,⁷ through defined procedures (including requirements for written reasons, hearings and post-decision reviews as prescribed under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules).

On the other hand, Section 79 solely serves as a safe harbour provision that states that intermediaries will be protected from liability for third party content, if they comply with their obligations under the IT Act and the IT Rules 2021. This includes, under Rule 3(1)(d), taking down ‘any unlawful information’ upon receiving ‘actual knowledge’ of such content being hosted on their platform through a Government notification or court order.

Unlike in the case of notices under Section 69-A, there were no safeguards or defined procedures for the Government to issue takedown notices under Section 79. Consequently, notices were often issued by invoking this provision⁸ read with Rule 3(1)(d) to demand removals on broad and vague grounds, effectively creating a parallel mechanism that could circumvent the limited grounds for blocking access and procedural safeguards under Section 69-A and the Blocking Rules.

The Amendment Rules bring forth some clarity to the takedown mechanism under Section 79 read with Section 3(1)(d). Key changes introduced are mentioned below.

Revised Takedown Framework Applicable to Intermediaries

Who may Issue a Notice

Previously, Rule 3(1)(d) did not specify the ranks of officers of the ‘Appropriate Government or its agency’ that may issue a takedown notice to an intermediary. However, the Amendment Rules clarify that:

1. An officer authorized to issue a takedown notice must be at least of Joint Secretary rank (or equivalent), and where such an officer is not appointed, a Director (or equivalent) to the Central or State Government, as the case may be.
2. Where an agency has been authorized by the Central or State Government, it must act through a single corresponding officer.
3. Where an intimation is issued by the police administration, then the notice shall be issued by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Inspector General of Police who is specifically authorised by the Government for this purpose.⁹

Contents of the Notice:

The Amendment Rules require that a takedown intimation must be written and reasoned, clearly specifying the legal provisions invoked, the nature of the alleged unlawful act, and the precise data, URLs, identifiers or electronic locations to be removed or disabled.¹⁰ This new requirement is expected to minimise vague and excessive takedown notifications issued to intermediaries.

Periodic reviews of notices issued:

All takedown notifications issued by an Appropriate Government (or its authorized agency) are to be subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer of such Appropriate Government.¹¹

The amendment aims to improve Government accountability for takedown notices issued to intermediaries. However, the manner of conducting the review process and whether it could lead to withdrawal or cancellation of previous notices remain unclear.

Takeaways

The Amendment Rules, by clarifying the manner and procedure for issuing takedown notices under Section 79 read with Rule 3(1)(d) bring the takedown framework under Section 79 closer to replicating the framework prescribed under Section 69-A read with the Blocking Rules. This should help in improving the quality and clarity of notices issued to intermediaries and promote greater Government accountability.

However, the two frameworks continue to overlap. The Government may still issue blocking orders on the specific grounds under Section 69-A, or issue takedown notices under the broader grounds of ‘any unlawful information’ under Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d). This concern, as raised in the X Corp v Union of India (2025) case remains unanswered.

Finally, the erstwhile Rule 3(1)(d) provided an explicit clarification that the voluntary removal of content by intermediaries for violation of their terms, or on receiving user grievances would not be treated as violation of safe-harbour conditions under Section 79. The Amendment Rules have omitted this clarification from the new Rule 3(1)(d).¹² The intention behind this omission is unclear. It is presumed that such a position would continue to stand, i.e., removal of content on a voluntary basis or based on user complaints would not dilute any intermediary’s safe harbour.

Authors

Sanjana Shrivastav, Prerana Reddy and Aaron Kamath

You can direct your queries or comments to the relevant member.

¹Amendment Rules, available at: https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/90dedea70a3fdfe6d58efb55b95b4109.pdf.

²Prior to the amendment, Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 stated that an intermediary was required, within 36 hours of receiving actual knowledge in the form of a court order or a notification from the Appropriate Government or its authorised agency under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, to not host, store, or publish any information that is unlawful or prohibited under any law for the time being in force, including that in relation to sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to such offences.

³Section 2(1)(e) of the IT Act defines ‘Appropriate Government’ to mean the State Government in case of any matter falling under List II of the Seventh Schedule or any State law under List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and the Central Government in all other cases.

⁴Section 79 of the IT Act states that an intermediary shall not be liable for third-party information made available or hosted on its platform, so long as its role is limited to providing access to the communication system over which the information is hosted, and it does not initiate the transmission, select the recipient, or modify the information.

This ‘safe harbour’ applies only if the intermediary observes its due diligence obligations under the IT Rules, 2021 and any other guidelines prescribed by the Central Government in this regard. The exemption does not apply where the intermediary has played an active role in the commission of the unlawful act, or where, after receiving ‘actual knowledge’ or, on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency that unlawful content is being hosted on its platform, the intermediary fails to remove or disable access to such content expeditiously.

⁵The ‘Sahyog’ Portal is a platform launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the Appropriate Government or its agency under the IT Act, available at:

https://sahyog.mha.gov.in/#:~:text=’Sahyog’%20Portal%20has%20been%20developed,for%20the%20Citizens%20of%20India.

⁶X Corp v Union of India (WP 7405/2025).

⁷These grounds are: the protection of the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the aforementioned.

Section 69A states that the Central Government or any officer specially authorised by it may direct any government agency or intermediary to block public access to information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource, if it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of the grounds mentioned above.

Such directions must be supported by written reasons and carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure and safeguards, and any intermediary failing to comply with such an order may face imprisonment of up to seven years along with a fine.

⁸Such notices are issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021.

Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act states that upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.

⁹Rule 2, Amendment Rules.

¹⁰Ibid.

¹²Ibid.

¹³For completeness, it may be noted that the MeitY has released draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 proposing to regulate synthetically generated information hosted on intermediary platforms. The draft amendments re-introduce this clarification under Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules, 2021.

Section 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules states that an intermediary must inform users of shall inform its rules and regulations, privacy policy, and user agreement and make reasonable efforts, by itself and to cause its users, not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share any information that violates any law for the time being in force.

Disclaimer

The contents of this hotline should not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.

This hotline does not constitute a legal opinion and may contain information generated using various artificial intelligence (AI) tools or assistants, including but not limited to our in-house tool, NaiDA. We strive to ensure the highest quality and accuracy of our content and services. Nishith Desai Associates is committed to the responsible use of AI tools, maintaining client confidentiality, and adhering to strict data protection policies to safeguard your information.

This hotline provides general information existing at the time of preparation. The Hotline is intended as a news update and Nishith Desai Associates neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this Hotline. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances. This hotline does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncements.

This is not a spam email. You have received this email because you have either requested for it or someone must have suggested your name. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a email cannot be considered spam if it contains the sender’s contact information, which this email does. In case this email doesn’t concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.