© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Take a look at the essential events, concepts, terms, quotes, or phenomena every day and brush up your knowledge. Here’s your knowledge nugget for today.
(Relevance: Awareness in the field of information technology is mentioned in the UPSC CSE syllabus and the UPSC has previously asked questions on this topic. With the rise of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, digital regulation has come into the spotlight, particularly in relation to the right to freedom. Therefore, it is essential to understand Grok and the important sections of the IT Act of 2000.)
Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) has challenged the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) to moderate and order the removal of content on social media. X’s petition comes at a time when its AI chatbot Grok 3 has been courting controversy for its use of Hindi slang, and responses that are critical of the government. While X has not received any notice regarding the issue, the Centre has reportedly got in touch with the company regarding the matter.
The Grok controversy also presents a new perspective on “safe harbour” provisions such as Section 79 of IT Act. In this context, let’s know what is ‘Grok’ and Important sections of IT Act, 2000.
1. Grok is a generative AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s X. Grok has been advertised by Musk as an ‘anti-woke’ alternative to chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.
2. Grok has the capability of searching and using data on X (such as public posts by users) to provide “up-to-date information and insights.” The AI chatbot has further been integrated on X in such a way that users only have to tag Grok in their public timelines to receive a response.
3. It also offers an “unhinged” mode for premium users, which may result in Grok being objectionable, inappropriate, and offensive, as per its own website.
The company X has challenged the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000. It has argued that the government’s “misuse” of the provision bypasses safeguards available under other provisions of the IT Act — namely Section 69A — that are specifically meant for the purpose of content moderation. In this context, let’s take a closer look at some important sections of the IT Act of 2000.
1. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act which criminally punished, among other things, sending false information “for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience”. After this decision, Section 69A of the IT Act became the primary law governing the matter.
2. Section 69A allows the Centre to issue orders blocking “any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource”, but unlike 66A, it contains safeguards against misuse, as the SC had noted in Shreya Singhal.
3. For blocking content under Section 69A, the Centre must deem it “necessary”. This “necessity”, however, is only justifiable under grounds provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution which “imposes reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech “in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
4. The SC in Shreya Singhal also clarified the application of another provision — Section 79 of the IT Act.
1. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the social media intermediaries such as X, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram, etc., have the immunity against legal prosecution for content posted by users.
2. Section 79 says any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.
3. However, section 79(3)(b) states that the intermediary could be held liable if it does not immediately remove such unlawful information “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency”.
4. The apex court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) case limited the scope of this provision, ruling that the requirement under Section 79(3)(b) will only kick in once a court order has been passed to that effect, or the government issues a notification stating that the content in question is related to grounds provided in Article 19(2).
5. But in October 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a directive to all ministries, state governments, and the police saying that information blocking orders could be issued under Section 79(3)(b).
6. A year later in October 2024, MeitY launched a portal called “Sahyog” where the aforementioned authorities could issue and upload blocking orders.
1. Safe harbour is legal immunity that online intermediaries enjoy against content posted by users on their platforms, as long as these platforms abide by certain due diligence requirements such as censoring content when asked by government or courts.
2. The basic premise of safe harbour protection is: since social media platforms cannot control at the first instance what users post, they should not be held legally liable for any objectionable content that they host, provided they are willing to take down such content when flagged by the government or courts.
3. Since social media platforms are generally understood to be crucial tools of free speech, safe harbour is viewed as a basic tenet of enabling freedom of expression on these platforms.
4. In the United States, this protection is available to social media platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 79 of India’s Information Technology Act, 2000 is somewhat similar — it classifies social media platforms as intermediaries and broadly shields them from legal action over the content that users post.
5. Notably, the Indian government talked about reconsidering the safe harbour clause last year during consultations on the Digital India Act, which once implemented will replace the decades old IT Act, 2000. However, the government is yet to issue a draft of the Digital India Bill for public consultation.
Consider the following statements:
1. Safe harbour clause is prescribed under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.
2. Safe harbour is legal immunity that online intermediaries enjoy against content posted by users on their platforms.
Which of the statements given above is/are not correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
| Answer Key |
| (d) |
(Sources: Grok gone wild: What the controversy reveals about AI, free speech, and accountability, ‘safe harbour’ protection, Explained: Social media and safe harbour, IT Act and content blocking: Why X has challenged govt’s use of Section 79)
🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for March 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
