Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Within a year of getting powers, MHA agency issued 290 takedown notices a day on average for online content

March 26, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Internal Security Science & Technology GS2 GS3
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Annual Report for 2024-25 revealed that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) — designated as MHA's takedown agency on March 13, 2024 — issued an average of 290 takedown notices per day for online content since receiving that power.
  • In total, I4C blocked or sought removal of 1,11,185 suspicious online URLs and accounts under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 by March 31, 2025.
  • The highest number of notices (78) went to WhatsApp, targeting 83,673 accounts/groups, followed by Instagram (73 notices, 22,150 URLs/accounts) and YouTube (257 URLs/accounts targeting reservation-related content, obscenity, national security).
  • I4C's actions under Section 79(3)(b) have attracted controversy: X (formerly Twitter) and civil society groups allege that the government is using the provision to bypass the stricter procedural safeguards and judicial oversight required under Section 69A of the IT Act, the provision specifically designed for government-directed content blocking.

Static Topic Bridges

Section 79 of the IT Act: Safe Harbour and Intermediary Liability

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides "safe harbour" protection to online intermediaries — platforms, ISPs, social media companies, e-commerce sites — shielding them from liability for third-party content hosted on their services, provided they act as neutral conduits and follow due diligence norms.

  • Section 79(1): Intermediary not liable for third-party content if it does not initiate, select, or modify the transmission.
  • Section 79(2): Conditions — the platform must observe due diligence and follow government-prescribed guidelines.
  • Section 79(3)(b): The safe harbour is forfeited if, upon receiving actual knowledge (via government notification or court order) of unlawful content, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove it.
  • The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021) operationalise Section 79, requiring platforms to appoint Grievance Officers, publish compliance reports, and act on notices within stipulated timelines.
  • Section 69A (distinct from 79): Empowers the Central Government to issue blocking orders for national security reasons, with procedural safeguards including a designated officer and review committee — considered more judicially accountable than 79(3)(b) notices.

Connection to this news: I4C's use of Section 79(3)(b) at scale — 1.1 lakh URLs in one year — raises a foundational question about whether a provision designed for incidental content removal is being used as a substitute for the more structured blocking mechanism under Section 69A.

Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C): Architecture and Mandate

I4C was established by MHA as a 7-pronged scheme to combat cybercrime in a coordinated manner across states and agencies. It serves as the nodal point for all cybercrime-related matters in India, interfacing with state police, intelligence agencies, CERT-In, and technology platforms.

  • I4C's seven components include the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), the National Cybercrime Threat Analytics Unit, the National Cybercrime Forensic Laboratory, and the National Cybercrime Training Centre.
  • The Cybercrime Helpline (1930) and the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) are key public-facing initiatives under I4C.
  • On March 13, 2024, I4C was designated as MHA's agency under Section 79(3)(b), giving it direct powers to notify platforms of unlawful content — previously, such notifications were routed through MEITY.
  • The Sahyog portal is I4C's government-platform interface through which takedown notices are delivered to intermediaries.
  • I4C's mandate covers financial fraud, drug trafficking, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), cyber terrorism, and fake news — a wide remit that has expanded rapidly.

Connection to this news: I4C's scale of operation (290 notices/day) reflects the MHA's growing assertion of cybersecurity powers. The debate over whether this falls within legitimate 79(3)(b) scope or amounts to executive overreach into 69A territory is a core polity and governance issue.

Digital Governance and Free Speech: Section 69A vs. 79(3)(b)

India's legal framework for online content removal has two principal routes: Section 69A (blocking orders by Central/State government for national security reasons, with procedural safeguards) and Section 79(3)(b) (notice-driven removal of unlawful content by intermediaries). Courts have scrutinised both provisions extensively.

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2015): Struck down Section 66A (criminalising online speech) as unconstitutional; upheld Section 69A with procedural safeguards; read down Section 79(3)(b) to require a court or government notification before the "actual knowledge" standard is triggered.
  • The 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment established that platforms cannot be required to take down content on the basis of mere third-party complaints — there must be a court order or government order.
  • Critics argue that I4C's mass use of 79(3)(b) notices effectively functions as executive content blocking without the judicial or quasi-judicial review built into 69A.
  • The Digital India Act (proposed replacement for the IT Act, 2000) is under consultation; it is expected to restructure intermediary liability and create tiered obligations based on platform size.

Connection to this news: The controversy over I4C's 79(3)(b) use is a live test of the tension between executive cybersecurity powers and constitutionally protected speech, making it directly relevant to Mains GS2 (governance, civil liberties) and GS3 (cybersecurity).

Key Facts & Data

  • I4C designated as MHA's content takedown agency: March 13, 2024 (under Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act, 2000).
  • Total URLs/accounts blocked in ~1 year: 1,11,185 (as of March 31, 2025) — averaging ~290 notices/day.
  • Platform-wise: WhatsApp (78 notices, 83,673 accounts), Instagram (73 notices, 22,150 URLs), YouTube (257 URLs/accounts).
  • "Disturbing public order" accounts for ~50% of MHA's X (Twitter) takedown notices.
  • Sahyog portal: Government-platform interface for I4C takedown delivery.
  • Section 79(3)(b) vs. Section 69A: Key procedural distinction — 69A has government review committee; 79(3)(b) relies on "actual knowledge" notification.
  • Shreya Singhal v. UoI (2015): SC upheld 69A, read down 79(3)(b) to require government/court order before action.
  • I4C's 7 components include: National Cybercrime Reporting Portal, Threat Analytics Unit, Forensic Lab, Training Centre, and Cybercrime Helpline (1930).
  • CERT-In (under MEITY): India's national cybersecurity agency, mandated to respond to cyber incidents (separate from I4C's law enforcement focus).