How to Respond to a Takedown Intimation Under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act
An instruction to remove content is not self-executing, and the first question is never whether to comply. It is what has actually arrived. A takedown intimation under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 carries one specific consequence, and the rule governing its form was tightened in 2025.
Step 1: Work Out Which of Three Things Has Arrived
Three documents are routinely treated as the same thing and are not. A court order directing removal; an intimation from the appropriate Government or its agency, which agencies now commonly route through the Sahyog portal, a dedicated channel putting authorised agencies and intermediaries on one platform; and a complaint from a private party.
Only the first two engage clause (b) of sub-section (3). A private complaint is a grievance to be handled through the grievance machinery, and on the reading the Supreme Court gave the provision it does not by itself put an intermediary on actual knowledge. Classifying the document correctly is the whole of the first step, because everything after it turns on the classification.
Step 2: Check Who Signed It
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 were notified on October 22, 2025 and took effect on November 15, 2025. They amended rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules to restrict who may issue a direction of this kind.
A government direction may issue only from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or an officer equivalent in rank, and where no officer of that rank has been appointed, from a Director or an officer of equivalent rank. For a police authority the officer must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General. Each Government or authorised agency is to act through a single designated officer. The signature block is therefore the first substantive check, not a formality.
Step 3: Check What It States
The amended rule requires a reasoned intimation, and it requires it to carry three things: the legal basis and the statutory provision invoked, the nature of the alleged unlawful act, and the specific URL or digital identifier of the material.
An intimation that names an account rather than a location, or asserts unlawfulness without naming the provision that makes it unlawful, does not meet the rule's own requirements. That is worth recording in the response rather than treating as a technicality, because the requirement exists to make the next two steps possible.
Step 4: Know What Is Actually at Stake
Sub-section (1) of section 79 provides, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to sub-sections (2) and (3), that an intermediary is not liable for third party information, data or communication links it makes available or hosts. The Explanation defines third party information as information the intermediary deals with in its capacity as an intermediary.
Sub-section (2) conditions that exemption on the intermediary's function being limited to providing access to a communication system over which third party information is transmitted, temporarily stored or hosted, on its not initiating the transmission or selecting the receiver or selecting or modifying the information, and on its observing due diligence. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) then removes the exemption where, on receiving actual knowledge or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that a computer resource controlled by it is being used for an unlawful act, the intermediary fails expeditiously to remove or disable access to that material.
Step 5: Apply the Reading the Supreme Court Gave It
In its 2015 decision in Shreya Singhal the Supreme Court read down actual knowledge in this provision. The obligation is triggered by a court order directing removal or disabling of access, not by the intermediary forming its own view of legality and not by a private demand. The Court also required that court orders and government notifications conform strictly to the subject matters set out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Read with the 2025 amendment, those two things work together. The rule requires the provision to be named; the reading requires the ground to fall within Article 19(2). An intimation that names no provision cannot be tested against that limit at all, which is why the omission matters more than it looks.
Step 6: Remove Access Without Destroying the Record
Clause (b) of sub-section (3) requires removal or disabling of access without vitiating the evidence in any manner. The condition is part of the clause, not a separate good practice, so compliance that destroys the material is not compliance.
In practice that means disabling access rather than deleting, and retaining the material, the access and upload logs, the intimation itself and the record of what was done and when. The same file answers a later allegation of over-removal.
Step 7: Use the Review Route the Rule Creates
The amended rule provides for a monthly review, by an officer of the rank of Secretary or above in the Appropriate Government concerned, of whether directions issued were necessary and proportionate.
That route is easy to overlook. A response that records a defect in the intimation, politely and with the rule cited, is what gives the review something to act on, and it is a great deal cheaper than a writ petition.
Step 8: Record the Decision and Its Reasons
The file should show which of the three documents arrived, who signed it and at what rank, whether the three required contents were present, what was decided and on what basis, what was done to the material, when, and what was preserved.
An intermediary that complied and an intermediary that declined are in equally defensible positions if each recorded why at the time. Neither is, if the reasoning has to be reconstructed afterwards.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Treating a private complaint as actual knowledge: On the reading the Supreme Court gave the provision, the obligation under clause (b) is triggered by a court order, not by a private demand.
Not checking the issuing officer's rank: The amended rule confines government directions to an officer not below Joint Secretary or equivalent, and police directions to Deputy Inspector General or above.
Accepting an intimation with no location identified: The rule requires the specific URL or digital identifier, not a description of an account or a category of content.
Deleting rather than disabling: The clause requires removal or disabling without vitiating the evidence in any manner.
Leaving the reasoning unrecorded: Both compliance and refusal are defensible when the basis was recorded at the time, and neither is when it was not.
Key Statutory Provisions
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases. Sub-section (1) opens with a non obstante clause and, subject to sub-sections (2) and (3), exempts an intermediary from liability for third party information, data or communication links it makes available or hosts. Sub-section (2) sets three conditions: a function limited to providing access to a communication system over which third party information is transmitted, temporarily stored or hosted; not initiating the transmission, selecting the receiver, or selecting or modifying the information; and observing due diligence under the Act and any guidelines the Central Government prescribes. Sub-section (3) disapplies the exemption where the intermediary conspired in, abetted, aided or induced the unlawful act, and where it fails expeditiously to remove or disable access after actual knowledge or notification by the appropriate Government or its agency, without vitiating the evidence in any manner. The Explanation defines third party information.
Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 intermediary rules, as amended in 2025: The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, notified on October 22, 2025 and effective from November 15, 2025, require a reasoned intimation stating the legal basis and the statutory provision invoked, the nature of the alleged unlawful act and the specific URL or digital identifier; confine issue to an officer not below Joint Secretary or equivalent, or a Director where no such officer is appointed, and for police authorities to Deputy Inspector General or above; require each Government or authorised agency to act through a single designated officer; and provide for a monthly review by an officer of the rank of Secretary or above of whether directions were necessary and proportionate.
Sources and References
Independent account of the same reading and its effect on intermediaries
The 2025 amendment to the intermediary rules, with the officer rank and the required contents
Independent report of the same amendment and the monthly review
Account of the portal through which such intimations are routed
Information Technology Act, 2000, section 79, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended in 2025
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.
Comments