Section 79(3)(b) is a crucial provision within The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000), which governs cyber activities and digital transactions in India. It defines a condition under which an intermediary—such as a social media platform, search engine, or ISP—loses its safe harbour protection from legal liability for third-party content.
The concept originated with Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, which grants conditional immunity to intermediaries, recognizing them as neutral hosts rather than originators of content. This provision was designed to balance the need for a free internet with the necessity of curbing unlawful material.
The mechanism of Section 79(3)(b) is a "notice and take down" regime. It states that an intermediary loses its immunity if, upon receiving actual knowledge that a computer resource is being used to commit an unlawful act, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material. The Supreme Court, in the landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), clarified the meaning of "actual knowledge," ruling that it must be in the form of a court order or a notification from the appropriate Government or its agency.
This provision is closely connected to Section 69A of the IT Act, which empowers the government to block public access to online information for reasons like national security or public order. Recently, the IT Rules, 2021 (and subsequent amendments) have introduced procedural safeguards under Rule 3(1)(d), which operates alongside Section 79(3)(b). These amendments require that takedown directions must be a reasoned intimation and can only be issued by senior officials, such as an officer of at least Joint Secretary rank or a DIG-level police officer, ensuring greater accountability and clarity in the process.