Internet policy of Government of India; Internet Service Provider — Intellectual Property Rights I Notes

Internet policy of Government of India; Internet Service Provider

When an anonymous user posts defamatory content, should the website that merely hosted it go to jail? For years that question had no clear answer in India, until the law drew a line: the platform is a neutral “middleman” and is protected — but only if it acts responsibly once put on notice.

What these two ideas are

A. Internet policy of the Government of India

India has no single “Internet Act”; its internet policy is a set of laws, rules and policy documents aimed at promoting digital growth while securing the network. The key components:

• the IT Act, 2000 and its rules — the legal backbone;
• the National Cyber Security Policy, 2013 — a framework to protect information and cyber infrastructure;
• the Digital India programme (2015) — to make government services available electronically and expand connectivity;
• licensing of internet services by the Department of Telecommunications under the Telegraph Act, 1885 and TRAI regulation;
• policies on net neutrality (TRAI’s 2018 recommendations barring discriminatory blocking/throttling of content); and
• intermediary guidelines (the IT Rules, 2011 and 2021) governing platforms.

The policy balances two goals: encouraging e-commerce and digital access on the one hand, and security, sovereignty and citizens’ rights on the other.

B. Internet Service Provider

An Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a company that provides users with access to the internet (e.g. Airtel, Jio, BSNL). In law an ISP is an “intermediary” under s.2(1)(w) of the IT Act — a person who, on behalf of another, receives, stores or transmits an electronic record or provides a service with respect to it.

The crucial rule is the safe-harbour under s.79: an intermediary is not liable for third-party information it merely transmits or hosts, provided it (1) does not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or modify the content; (2) observes due diligence and the Government’s guidelines; and (3) expeditiously removes or disables unlawful content on receiving actual knowledge (or a court/Government order). In Shreya Singhal (2015) the Supreme Court read down s.79: an intermediary must act only on a court order or a Government notification, not on any private demand.

Information Technology Act, 2000, s.79(1): “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.”

Information Technology Act, 2000, s.2(1)(w): “‘intermediary’, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record…”

In Simple Terms: India’s internet policy is a patchwork — the IT Act, the Cyber Security Policy 2013, Digital India, net-neutrality rules and intermediary guidelines — balancing digital growth against security. An ISP is an “intermediary” that gives you internet access; under s.79 it is not liable for users’ content if it stays neutral, does due diligence, and removes unlawful content on a proper (court/Government) order.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — is the ISP liable for a user’s post?

Facts. A user posts defamatory content through an ISP/platform. The victim demands the ISP be held liable and sues it along with the user.

Rule. s.79 safe-harbour — an intermediary is exempt from liability for third-party content if it is neutral, exercises due diligence, and removes unlawful content on a court/Government order (as read down in Shreya Singhal, 2015).

Apply. The ISP did not create the content and merely transmitted it; unless it was notified by a court/Government order and failed to remove it, it keeps the safe-harbour protection.

Conclusion. The ISP is not liable for the user’s post so long as it satisfies s.79; the primary liability rests on the user who posted it.

flowchart TD
    NET["Govt internet policy & ISPs"]:::root
    NET --> POL["Policy: IT Act, Cyber Security Policy 2013, Digital India, net neutrality"]:::leaf
    NET --> ISP["ISP = intermediary (s.2(1)(w))"]:::leaf
    ISP --> SH["Safe-harbour (s.79): neutral + due diligence + take-down on order"]:::leaf
    ISP --> SS["Shreya Singhal (2015): act only on court/Govt order"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;

Case Laws

• Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) — read down s.79; an intermediary must remove content only on a court order or Government notification.
• Avnish Bajaj v State (2005) — the Bazee.com case; exposed the gap in intermediary protection that led to the strengthened s.79 safe-harbour.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights I topics