Intermediary (IT Act) is any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores, or transmits an electronic record or provides any service with respect to that record, encompassing internet service providers, social media platforms, search engines, e-commerce marketplaces, and other digital platforms. Under Indian law, intermediaries are defined in Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and enjoy conditional immunity from liability for third-party content under the safe harbour provision of Section 79, subject to compliance with due diligence obligations.
Legal definition
The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides the statutory definition:
Section 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 and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes."
The safe harbour protection is established by Section 79:
Section 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."
This immunity is conditional on meeting specific requirements:
Section 79(2): The immunity applies only where (a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system, and the intermediary does not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or select or modify the information; (b) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging its duties under the Act; and (c) the intermediary does not conspire or abet or aid or induce the commission of the unlawful act.
Section 79(3): The immunity ceases if the intermediary "upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act," fails to "expeditiously remove or disable access to that material."
How courts have interpreted this term
Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries [(2020) 8 SCC 531]
The Supreme Court examined whether a search engine (Google) qualifies as an intermediary and is entitled to safe harbour protection under Section 79. The Court affirmed that search engines are intermediaries under Section 2(1)(w), as they provide a service with respect to electronic records. However, the Court also held that the safe harbour is not absolute — Google must act expeditiously upon receiving a court order to remove or de-index defamatory content. The judgment distinguished between "actual knowledge" (which triggers the duty to act) and mere "general awareness" (which does not).
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1]
While primarily addressing Section 66A, the Supreme Court also interpreted Section 79 and read down the provision to hold that intermediaries are required to remove content only upon receiving a court order or a notification from the appropriate government authority — not upon receiving a private complaint. The Court held that the words "actual knowledge" in Section 79(3) must be read to mean knowledge through a court order, thereby protecting intermediaries from being forced to make subjective content-moderation decisions based on private takedown demands.
Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. [(2017) 236 DLT 478]
The Delhi High Court examined whether Myspace, as a social media platform hosting user-uploaded music videos, could claim safe harbour under Section 79. The Court held that where an intermediary has specific knowledge of infringing content (through a valid notice from the copyright holder) and fails to act, it loses safe harbour protection. The Court applied the "specific knowledge" test rather than a "general monitoring" obligation, consistent with the Shreya Singhal reading of Section 79.
Types of intermediary
Indian law distinguishes between different categories of intermediaries, each with different obligation levels:
- Social Media Intermediary (SMI): Any intermediary that primarily enables online interaction between users, allowing them to create, upload, share, or access information using its services. All social media platforms must comply with basic due diligence under the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021.
- Significant Social Media Intermediary (SSMI): A social media intermediary with 50 lakh (5 million) or more registered users in India. SSMIs face enhanced obligations: appointing a Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer (all based in India); enabling identification of the first originator of information under court order; deploying technology-based measures for proactive content filtering; and publishing monthly compliance reports.
- Non-social media intermediaries: ISPs, search engines, e-commerce marketplaces, web hosting providers, and cyber cafes — subject to basic due diligence but not the enhanced SSMI obligations.
Why this matters
The intermediary liability framework determines the legal exposure of every digital platform operating in India. From multinational social media companies to domestic e-commerce startups, the question of whether a platform qualifies as an intermediary — and whether it has complied with its due diligence obligations — determines whether it is shielded from liability for content posted by its users.
For platform operators, maintaining safe harbour protection requires continuous compliance with the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021. Key obligations include: publishing terms of service that prohibit specified categories of content (Section 3(1)(b)), acknowledging user complaints within 24 hours and resolving them within 15 days (Section 3(2)), removing content flagged by court orders or government notifications within 36 hours (Section 3(1)(d)), and preserving information and records for specified retention periods.
A critical practical issue is the "actual knowledge" standard. Following Shreya Singhal, intermediaries need not proactively monitor all content on their platforms. However, once actual knowledge is established — through a court order, government notification, or (for copyright) a valid takedown notice from the rights holder — the intermediary must act expeditiously. Failure to act triggers loss of safe harbour, exposing the platform to both civil and criminal liability for the unlawful content.
For practitioners, intermediary liability issues arise across multiple practice areas: defamation (user posts harming reputation), copyright infringement (user uploads of protected content), trademark dilution (counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms), and data protection (intermediary's obligations as a data fiduciary under the DPDP Act, 2023). The dual status of many platforms — as intermediaries under the IT Act and as data fiduciaries under the DPDP Act — creates layered compliance obligations.
Related terms
Regulatory framework:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is safe harbour for intermediaries under Indian law?
Safe harbour (Section 79 of the IT Act) is conditional immunity that protects intermediaries from legal liability for content posted by third-party users on their platform. The immunity applies only if the intermediary: (a) does not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or modify the content; (b) complies with due diligence obligations under the Intermediary Guidelines; and (c) acts expeditiously upon receiving actual knowledge (through court order or government notification) to remove or disable access to unlawful content.
Who qualifies as a Significant Social Media Intermediary?
Under Rule 2(v) of the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021, a social media intermediary with 50 lakh (5 million) or more registered users in India is classified as a Significant Social Media Intermediary (SSMI). SSMIs must comply with enhanced obligations including appointing a Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer (all based in India), enabling traceability of the first originator of information under court order, deploying proactive content filtering, and publishing monthly compliance reports.
Can an intermediary be held liable for defamatory content posted by users?
An intermediary is not liable for defamatory content posted by users provided it maintains safe harbour under Section 79. However, safe harbour is lost if: (a) the intermediary has actual knowledge of the defamatory content (through court order or government notification) and fails to remove it expeditiously; (b) the intermediary conspires with, abets, aids, or induces the posting of defamatory content; or (c) the intermediary fails to observe due diligence under the Intermediary Guidelines. Courts have held that intermediaries must comply with takedown orders within 36 hours of receipt.
Does safe harbour apply to e-commerce marketplaces?
Yes. E-commerce marketplaces are expressly included in the definition of intermediary under Section 2(1)(w). However, the safe harbour applies only when the marketplace functions as a platform connecting buyers and sellers, without exercising editorial control over the listings. If the marketplace itself sells products (inventory model) rather than merely facilitating third-party sales (marketplace model), it may not qualify for intermediary protection for those transactions.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.