Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases. 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. The Act came into force on 17 Oct 2000.
1[79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.--(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.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if--
(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or
(b) the intermediary does not--
(i) initiate the transmission,
(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and
(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if--
(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;
(b) 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, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, the expression "third party information" means any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary.]
Section 79, The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-32.pdf 2019-12-10 (not same-date order-33 ROP). Shantanagoudar/K.M. Joseph, Crl A 1987/2014. IT Act s.79 intermediary safe-harbour as it stood for the pre-2009 Google Groups facts, and after Shreya Singhal, does not automatically quash a criminal-defamation complaint against Google India; disputed facts (actual knowledge / due diligence / whether the Indian subsidiary was the publisher) go to trial. SC teaching file on s.79 (Myspace remains the HC file already in combined).
On this section: s.79 intermediary safe-harbour does not automatically quash a criminal-defamation complaint; knowledge, due diligence and publisher-status are trial facts. SC file alongside the existing Myspace HC row.
-
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an alleged offence pertains to obscene material in electronic form, the offence falls exclusively under the special provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically Sections 67, 67A, and 67B), and not under the general provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The IT Act, being a special enactment with specific provisions for electronic records and containing an overriding effect clause (Section 81), prevails over the IPC. Therefore, an accused who has been discharged from prosecution under Section 67 of the IT Act cannot subsequently be prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for the same conduct involving obscene material in electronic form. The principle that special laws prevail over general laws, particularly when both contain non-obstante clauses, mandates that the IT Act provisions apply to electronic records, and the protection and effect of Section 79 (intermediary protection) cannot be ignored or negated.
On this section: Protection of intermediaries from liability in certain cases. Court held this exemption provision applies to intermediaries upon actual knowledge, as interpreted in Shreya Singhal
-
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person or company cannot claim immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which protects intermediaries from liability for third-party information) when engaged in illegal drug trafficking operations. Section 79 provides immunity only from prosecution under the Information Technology Act itself, not from prosecution under other statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. When a company uses technology platforms and internet services as a facade to actively facilitate, design, develop, host, and control the distribution of banned psychotropic substances, it is not a mere intermediary but an active participant in the illegal trade and can be prosecuted under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Bail should be denied when overwhelming inculpatory evidence establishes a prima facie case and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty or would not resume illegal activities.
On this section: Provides immunity to intermediaries from liability for third-party information; Court held this does not apply to appellant as he was not a mere intermediary but active facilitator of illegal drug trade
-
Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
IT Act s.79 safe harbour is not ousted by the s.81 proviso in copyright claims. Copyright Act s.51(a)(ii) for intermediaries requires actual knowledge of specific infringing URLs, not general awareness. Intermediaries need not pre-screen UGC; they must take down specified content within 36 hours of notice. Reverses the 2012 single-judge approach.
On this section: s.79 safe harbour survives in copyright claims; actual knowledge of specific URLs, 36-hour takedown, no pre-screening.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Made under this section, and citing it
3 instruments state that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Another 3 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 updated as on 6.4.2023Rule 2023
- Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 - comprehensive rules updated on 28th Oct 2022,Rule 2022
- Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.Rule 2021
Questions about Section 79
What have the courts held on Section 79 of the Information Technology Act?
Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd. (10 Dec 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.79 intermediary safe-harbour does not automatically quash a criminal-defamation complaint; knowledge, due diligence and publisher-status are trial facts. SC file alongside the existing Myspace HC row. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IT Act 79, section 79 IT Act, section 79 of the Information Technology Act. People searching for it also type it act 79 3 b and it act 79a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd. (10 Dec 2019).
What should I read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there are 3: most recently Process of registration of cyber cafe to be followed by registration agency (2012), then Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. (2011), and 1 more.
When did Section 79 of the Information Technology Act come into force?
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, commonly called safe harbour or intermediary liability, and cited as IT Act 79, came into force on 17 Oct 2000, having been enacted on 09 Jun 2000. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1304 words
- 87. Power of Central Government to make rules877 words
- 43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc506 words
- 46. Power to adjudicate370 words
- 89. Power of Controller to make regulations345 words
- 70B. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team to serve as national agency for incident response326 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.