Online curation systems unlike newspapers: Govt on safe harbour call
New Delhi, July 18 — The Indian government has told the Delhi High Court that online curation platforms differ from traditional newspapers. According to the government, these platforms should not enjoy the same safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said these platforms are not neutral intermediaries. Instead, they use algorithms to amplify and prioritize content, which affects how users consume information.
What Is Safe Harbour?
Safe harbour allows online platforms to avoid legal responsibility for user-generated content. But this protection applies only if the platform acts as a passive conduit and follows required guidelines.
The government stated that when platforms recommend or boost content using algorithms, they stop being passive. This makes them more accountable under Indian law.
Background of the Case
The statement was made in a case filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter). The company is challenging the government’s orders to remove certain posts from the platform. It claims that it simply hosts content, much like a newspaper publishes letters to the editor.
However, the government disagrees. It said online platforms and newspapers operate very differently and cannot be treated the same.
Govt’s Argument: Curation Changes Liability
The government explained that newspapers involve human editors. In contrast, digital platforms rely on algorithms that sort, recommend, and amplify content. These algorithms are designed to influence what users see.
“These systems are not neutral,” MeitY said. “They shape user experience and attention. This makes them different from traditional publishers.”
According to MeitY, a platform that curates content becomes more than a simple carrier. Therefore, it cannot claim full legal immunity under Section 79.
Possible Impacts
This position could affect how companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram operate in India. If the court agrees, platforms may become legally responsible for harmful or misleading content that gets promoted by their algorithms.
This view is gaining attention worldwide. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and debates around Section 230 in the US are also looking into platform accountability for algorithmic content promotion.
Industry Reactions
Tech experts and free speech advocates have reacted with mixed opinions. Some say the government’s stance could hurt innovation. Others believe it’s time for online giants to be held accountable for the reach and impact of what they promote.
A tech industry representative noted,
“We need clarity. If all algorithmic suggestions count as editorial judgment, platforms may face too much liability. But they must take responsibility when harm is caused.”
What’s Next?
The Delhi High Court will continue hearing the matter in the coming weeks. The ruling could reshape how online platforms, free speech, and digital regulations evolve in India.
The government’s message is clear: Online curation systems are not newspapers. Safe harbour does not cover platforms that actively shape content.
