Beyond the Meta controversy, the committee addressed other major tech firms, demanding that Google India’s safe harbour also be lifted. The committee cited cybercrime complaints in Hyderabad where complainants lost over ₹48 lakh due to fraud via apps downloaded from Google Play. The Google India country manager was named as a co-accused in these cases. By lifting safe harbour, Google would become liable for individual user posts, shifting the burden of content verification directly onto the platform publisher. This parallel demand suggests a broader governmental intent to tighten control over intermediary platforms under the Section 79 IT Act framework.

The committee’s actions follow a heated hearing on Monday, August 3, 2026, where representatives from Meta, Google, and X (formerly Twitter) appeared before the panel. During this session, Opposition MPs pushed back against the ruling party’s line of questioning, arguing that content moderation should remain free from political influence. Despite these objections, the committee proceeded to draft the strict ultimatum, highlighting a deepening divide between legislative authority and digital platform governance.

Legal experts have raised questions about the feasibility of the committee’s demands. Ravi Goyal, founder of law firm Scriboard, told The Hindu that there is no express legal provision allowing the government to directly remove safe harbour protection under Section 79. He explained that such protection is not a blanket immunity but applies to specific content or instances. Even if an intermediary is found ineligible for protection regarding specific content, it may still avail protection for other services, subject to legal compliance. Such determinations are typically made on a case-to-case basis by a court of law, not unilaterally by a parliamentary committee.

The committee also addressed content safety issues, citing BBC reporting on child sex abuse material (CSAM) advertisements on Instagram. They demanded immediate action against intermediary platforms that host CSAM and material demeaning women. This dual focus on political content removal and illegal material suggests an attempt to consolidate regulatory oversight across multiple violation types. The IT Ministry and Meta did not immediately respond to queries regarding the letter, while Google declined to comment, indicating a cautious approach to the developing legal crisis.

Meta Faces Potential Legal Shift and Regulatory Scrutiny

The committee’s ultimatum forces a critical examination of intermediary liability in India. If Meta fails to apologize, the potential revocation of safe harbour could set a precedent for holding tech CEOs personally liable for platform content. This move may compel global tech firms to adopt stricter, pre-emptive content moderation policies to avoid political backlash. The demand against Google further intensifies pressure on digital infrastructure providers, potentially leading to increased compliance costs and localized content restrictions. The outcome will likely shape the future balance of power between India’s legislative bodies and international technology companies.