Tamil Nadu Police Directs 'X' to Remove Video of Attack on Odisha Man
TN police order 'X' to remove video of attack, citing IT Act and public order.
Photo by Logan Voss
The Tamil Nadu Police has directed the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) to take down a video depicting an attack on an Odisha man. The police cited concerns that the video could incite violence, disturb public order, and potentially lead to cybercrime activities like doxing and harassment.
This action is taken under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which allows authorities to order intermediaries to remove unlawful content. The incident highlights the ongoing challenges of content moderation on social media, the role of law enforcement in preventing incitement, and the legal framework governing online platforms in India.
Key Facts
Tamil Nadu Police directed 'X' to remove a video.
Video depicted an attack on an Odisha man.
Action taken under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.
Concerns: incitement to violence, public order, cybercrime.
UPSC Exam Angles
Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically Section 79 and its implications)
Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour provisions
Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19) and its reasonable restrictions
Content Moderation and Regulation of Social Media Platforms
Cybercrime and Cybersecurity Framework in India
Role of Law Enforcement in the Digital Sphere
Visual Insights
Incident Location & Inter-State Context
This map highlights the states involved in the news story: Tamil Nadu, where the incident occurred and police action was taken, and Odisha, the home state of the victim. It underscores the inter-state dimension of social issues and law enforcement challenges.
Loading interactive map...
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. With reference to the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its related rules, consider the following statements: 1. Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, grants 'safe harbour' protection to intermediaries, exempting them from liability for third-party content, provided they observe due diligence. 2. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, mandate significant social media intermediaries to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person, and a Resident Grievance Officer. 3. An intermediary is liable for third-party content if it fails to remove unlawful content within 24 hours of receiving a court order or a notification from an appropriate government agency. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct. Section 79 provides 'safe harbour' to intermediaries if they fulfill certain conditions, including observing due diligence. Statement 2 is correct. The IT Rules, 2021, indeed mandate significant social media intermediaries to appoint these three key personnel to ensure compliance and grievance redressal. Statement 3 is also correct. The IT Rules, 2021, specify timelines for removal of unlawful content, including 24 hours for certain types of content (like those depicting nudity, sexual acts, or impersonation) and generally 72 hours for other unlawful content upon receiving a court order or government notification. The news specifically mentions the police directing removal, which falls under the ambit of government agency notification. Therefore, all three statements are correct.
2. In the context of regulating online content in India, which of the following statements correctly reflects the balance between fundamental rights and public order? 1. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, without any restrictions. 2. The grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, such as public order, incitement to an offence, and defamation, are exhaustively listed under Article 19(2). 3. The Supreme Court, in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, but struck down Section 79. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.2 and 3 only
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 19(1)(a) does not guarantee absolute freedom of speech and expression. It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Statement 2 is correct. Article 19(2) explicitly lists the grounds for reasonable restrictions, including sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. Statement 3 is incorrect. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, as unconstitutional, but upheld the constitutional validity of Section 79, albeit with certain interpretations regarding intermediary liability. Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.