Artificial Intelligence, Data Analytics and Cyber Security - Laws and Practice · Cyber Threats and Cyber Laws

Intermediary Liability and Adjudication under the IT Act

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, an intermediary is not liable for third party information it hosts or makes available, if it meets the section's conditions and loses no safe harbour through abetment or inaction after knowledge. Contraventions are adjudicated by an adjudicating officer, with appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 45 days.

Understand Intermediary Liability and Adjudication

An intermediary is a business that carries or hosts content created by others. Think of a social media platform, a web host or an internet service provider. If every post made by a user made the platform liable, such businesses could not run. Section 79 solves this with a safe harbour.

Section 79(1) says that, despite any other law, an intermediary is not liable for third party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by it. This is subject to sub-sections (2) and (3). Safe harbour is therefore conditional, not automatic.

Section 79(2) gives the conditions. Either the intermediary's function is limited to giving access to a communication system over which third party information is transmitted, temporarily stored or hosted; or it does not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or select or modify the information. In addition, it must observe due diligence in discharging its duties under the Act and follow other guidelines the Central Government may prescribe.

Section 79(3) takes the protection away in two cases. First, where the intermediary conspired, abetted, aided or induced the unlawful act, by threats, promise or otherwise. Second, where, on receiving actual knowledge or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that information on a computer resource it controls is being used for an unlawful act, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access, without vitiating the evidence.

Adjudication is the civil route for contraventions that attract penalty or compensation. The Central Government appoints an adjudicating officer (section 46). Appeals go to the Appellate Tribunal (sections 48 and 57). Civil courts are barred from matters these bodies can decide (section 61). Section 67C separately requires intermediaries to preserve and retain specified information.

Key rules to remember

Safe harbour rule: Section 79(1) protection = no liability for third party information, subject to s.79(2) and s.79(3); It applies notwithstanding any other law, but only when the conditions are met.
Conditions for safe harbour: s.79(2): (a) access-only function, OR (b) no initiating, no selecting receiver, no selecting or modifying information; AND (c) due diligence plus prescribed guidelines; Clause (c) is needed in addition to (a) or (b). Read the connectors in the text carefully.
Loss of safe harbour: s.79(3): (a) conspiracy, abetment, aid or inducement; (b) failure to expeditiously remove or disable access after actual knowledge or Government notification; Removal must be done without vitiating the evidence.
Adjudicating officer: Section 46: officer not below Director to Government of India (or equivalent State officer); claims up to ₹5 crore; Claims exceeding ₹5 crore lie with the competent court (s.46(1A)).
Factors for quantum: Section 47: (a) unfair gain, where quantifiable; (b) loss caused; (c) repetitive nature of default; The adjudicating officer must have due regard to these three.
Appeal: Section 57: appeal within 45 days of receiving the order; disposal endeavoured within 6 months; Delay can be condoned for sufficient cause. No appeal lies from an order made with the consent of parties.
Compounding: Section 63: sum not above maximum penalty; not available for same or similar contravention within 3 years of earlier compounding; Compounding can happen before or after adjudication proceedings begin.
Retention duty: Section 67C: penalty up to ₹25 lakh for intentional or knowing contravention; The duration, manner and format are as the Central Government prescribes.

How to solve Intermediary Liability and Adjudication questions

Most questions give a platform or a dispute and ask whether liability arises or where the matter goes. Use the same sequence each time.

1Identify whether the party is an intermediary: does it only host, carry or give access to third party content?
2Test section 79(2): is its role passive (no initiating, selecting the receiver, selecting or modifying), and did it observe due diligence and the prescribed guidelines?
3Test section 79(3): look for conspiracy, abetment, inducement, or failure to act on actual knowledge or Government notification.
4Check the timing and manner of removal: was it expeditious, and was the evidence preserved?
5If a contravention is alleged, identify the forum: adjudicating officer for claims up to ₹5 crore, court above that; civil courts are barred under section 61 for matters within the officer's power.
6State the appeal route: Appellate Tribunal within 45 days, with condonation for sufficient cause, unless the order was by consent.
7Conclude clearly: safe harbour available or lost, and the remedy or forum.

Quickest way: Passive-role and knowledge check

When to use it: Short case questions where you have a few minutes to decide whether the intermediary is protected.

Ask: did it only host or transmit, or did it select or modify content?
Ask: did it follow due diligence?
Ask: did it know or get notified, and did it act fast?
If any answer fails, safe harbour is lost; write the conclusion citing section 79(2) or 79(3).
Add the forum line: adjudicating officer, then Appellate Tribunal in 45 days.

Common mistakes in Intermediary Liability and Adjudication

Saying safe harbour under section 79 is automatic for every intermediary.
Students remember the heading 'exemption' and skip the subject-to clause.
Fix: Always state that section 79(1) is subject to sub-sections (2) and (3).
Ignoring the due diligence condition in section 79(2)(c).
Students focus only on the passive role in clauses (a) and (b).
Fix: Treat due diligence and the prescribed guidelines as a separate requirement that must also be met.
Writing that the intermediary must remove content on any complaint from a private person.
Confusing the text with common practice.
Fix: The text speaks of actual knowledge or notification by the appropriate Government or its agency. Use those words.
Forgetting that removal must not vitiate evidence.
Students stop reading at 'remove or disable access'.
Fix: Add 'without vitiating the evidence in any manner' when stating section 79(3)(b).
Mixing up the ₹5 crore limit and the 45-day limit, or saying the appeal goes to a Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
Older material uses the earlier name and numbers blur together.
Fix: Remember: adjudicating officer up to ₹5 crore; appeal in 45 days to the Appellate Tribunal (the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal).
Claiming compounding is always available.
Students skip the three-year bar in section 63(2).
Fix: State the bar for the same or similar contravention within three years of the earlier compounding.

Worked examples

Example 1

A video-sharing platform hosts user uploads. A State Government agency notifies it that a particular video is being used to commit an unlawful act. The platform takes no action for several weeks. The video's creator is prosecuted, and the platform claims safe harbour under section 79. Advise.

Show the solution

The platform hosts third party content and does not create it, so it can be an intermediary under section 79(1), subject to sub-sections (2) and (3).
Assume the section 79(2) conditions are met: passive role and due diligence.
Section 79(3)(b) removes protection if, on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access.
Here a Government agency notified it and it did nothing for weeks. This is not expeditious action.
So the protection in section 79(1) does not apply.

Answer: The platform cannot claim safe harbour. Having been notified by a Government agency, it failed to expeditiously remove or disable access, so section 79(3)(b) takes away the exemption.

Example 2

An adjudicating officer imposes a penalty on a company under the IT Act. The company received the order on 1 March. It wants to challenge it. State the forum, the time limit and the possible outcome.

Show the solution

Orders of an adjudicating officer are appealable under section 57(1) to the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction.
The exception is an order made with the consent of the parties, which cannot be appealed (section 57(2)).
The appeal must be filed within 45 days of receiving the copy of the order (section 57(3)), so counting from 1 March.
The Tribunal may entertain a late appeal if satisfied there was sufficient cause.
After hearing the parties, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the order (section 57(4)). It should endeavour to dispose of the appeal within six months (section 57(6)).
Section 61 bars civil courts from entertaining the matter.

Answer: The company should appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 45 days of receiving the order. The Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside it. A civil court cannot hear the matter.

Exam tips

Quote the key phrases of section 79(3) exactly: 'actual knowledge', 'expeditiously', 'without vitiating the evidence'.
In case questions, follow provision, facts, conclusion. Name the sub-section that decides the outcome.
Learn the numbers as a set: ₹5 crore, 45 days, 6 months, 3 years, ₹25 lakh.
For drafting or compliance angles, mention the practical steps: a takedown process, evidence preservation, and retention of records under section 67C.
Use the name Appellate Tribunal and mention the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal under section 48.

Practice questions from Cyber Threats and Cyber Laws

Intermediary Liability and Adjudication in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

CMA FinalIntermediary Liability and Adjudication Mechanism

Intermediary Liability and Adjudication: frequently asked questions

What is the safe harbour for intermediaries under section 79?

Section 79(1) says an intermediary is not liable for third party information, data or communication link it makes available or hosts. This protection depends on the conditions in section 79(2) and is lost in the situations in section 79(3).

When does an intermediary lose safe harbour?

It loses it if it conspired, abetted, aided or induced the unlawful act. It also loses it if, after actual knowledge or notification by the appropriate Government or its agency, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the material without vitiating the evidence.

Who decides contraventions under the IT Act and who hears appeals?

An adjudicating officer appointed by the Central Government decides claims up to ₹5 crore. Appeals go to the Appellate Tribunal within 45 days of receiving the order. Claims above ₹5 crore lie with the competent court.

Can a contravention be compounded?

Yes. Section 63 allows compounding before or after adjudication proceedings, up to the maximum penalty. It does not apply to the same or similar contravention within three years of the earlier compounding.