Meta Global Team Summoned By Centre Over Algorithmic Bias, Child Sex Content

New Delhi: Meta's global policy leadership, including chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan, has been asked to meet officials from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) next week after the government conveyed concerns over content that it says impacts public order, remains online despite allegedly violating the platform's own Community Standards, and includes child sexual abuse material (CSAM), people familiar with the matter said.Officials said the ministry has informed the social media intermediary that while concerns over public order and enforcement of its own policies remain under discussion, the presence of CSAM carries direct legal implications and failure to act against such content could result in the platform losing the safe harbour protections available to intermediaries under India's Information Technology Act. Dates for the meeting are currently being worked out.The proposed meeting comes days after Meta temporarily withheld a video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi before restoring it. Meta subsequently said the restriction had been applied in error, apologised for the mistake and reinstated the video following a review. People familiar with the matter said the incident figured prominently in the government's broader concerns over the consistency of the platform's content moderation decisions.The engagement also follows allegations by participants in the recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led student protests, who claimed that posts documenting demonstrations, police action and protest mobilisation were removed or had their visibility restricted across Meta's platforms. Protest organisers alleged that their social media content was being censored. Government officials, however, maintain that intermediaries remain responsible for enforcing their own Community Standards while also complying with legal obligations under Indian law.According to people familiar with the discussions, officials have flagged multiple categories of content before Meta. These include posts that they believe have the potential to disturb public order, content that they contend clearly violates Meta's own Community Standards but continues to remain online, and CSAM, which platforms are legally required to detect, report and remove expeditiously.The government's concerns reflect a broader debate over the responsibilities of intermediaries in India. Companies such as Meta and X remove content that violates their Community Standards while separately processing legal requests from governments seeking removal of content, preservation of electronic evidence and disclosure of subscriber information for investigations. People familiar with platform operations said legal compliance is handled independently from policy-based or automated moderation and often requires an assessment of whether a government communication constitutes a legally valid order before any action is taken.The issue has assumed greater significance because intermediaries enjoy "safe harbour" protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, shielding them from liability for third-party content posted by users, provided they continue to satisfy statutory obligations. Under Section 79(3)(b), that protection can be lost if, after acquiring "actual knowledge" of unlawful content in the manner prescribed by law, an intermediary fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to it. Government officials said CSAM falls within the category of content where failure to act can have direct implications for intermediary liability.The Centre's powers to direct blocking of online information principally flow from Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The provision permits blocking only on grounds recognised under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, including sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order and prevention of incitement to cognisable offences.In a 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A while clarifying that "actual knowledge" under Section 79 cannot arise merely because a private individual or public authority objects to online content. Rather, an intermediary becomes legally obliged to act only upon receiving a court order or a valid government direction relating to speech falling within the restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). The judgment was intended to ensure that platforms do not become private arbiters of lawful expression.The government's engagement with Meta also comes at a time when authorities have stepped up scrutiny of online content more broadly.Earlier this week, Delhi Police issued notices to X directing the platform to disable access to posts linked to recent student protests, preserve associated account data and subscriber information, and furnish details required for investigation into alleged circulation of objectionable, defamatory and manipulated content targeting PM Modi. Senior police officers indicated that additional notices could follow if similar content is identified.According to police, the notices relate not only to posts connected with the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), but also to other social media accounts alleged to have circulated objectionable material targeting constitutional authorities. Officials said the notices sought immediate disabling of specified URLs while requiring the platform to preserve relevant logs and subscriber information for evidentiary purposes.Legal experts say police-originated takedown notices must satisfy procedural requirements under the Information Technology Rules. Kazim Rizvi, founder of technology policy think tank The Dialogue, said such communications must be reasoned, identify the statutory provision invoked, specify the allegedly unlawful act and clearly identify the URLs concerned before they trigger an intermediary's legal obligation to act. He also said police powers to seek subscriber information depend on the nature of the offence being investigated and the applicable statutory safeguards.Meanwhile, the Internet Freedom Foundation called for greater transparency around executive takedown notices, urging authorities to disclose the legal provisions invoked and publish blocking orders wherever legally permissible. The organisation also said platforms should decline requests unsupported by valid legal orders, notify affected users and disclose government demands in their transparency reports.Transparency reports published by major platforms illustrate the scale of government engagement. Meta has consistently ranked India among the largest sources of government requests for user information and legal restrictions on content. X similarly publishes country-specific transparency reports detailing requests for account information and content removal, along with its compliance rates.NDTV has reached out to Meta and MeitY regarding the proposed meeting and the government's concerns. Their responses are awaited.