MeitY Asks Meta to Review Its Recommendation Systems: Advisories, Blocking Powers and Safe Harbour Explained
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent an advisory to Meta (the company that runs Facebook and Instagram) on October 10, 2026. An advisory is official guidance; it is not a law or a formal legal order.
The advisory asks Meta to review its recommendation and ranking systems (the computer programs that decide which posts each user sees). Meta must make sure users are not shown a single or limited set of narratives about ongoing public events in a disproportionate way.
Meta was also asked to add context (labels or background notes) to photos, videos and graphics about ongoing events, especially when their date, place or authenticity is unclear. Special attention was asked for old footage shown as new, selectively edited visuals, unverified claims about emergency restrictions, and misleading accounts of police action.
The ministry asked Meta to act with immediate effect, give information or assistance to law enforcement agencies, and report the action it took. The advisory was not published publicly.
It came two days after a general advisory of October 8, 2026 to all social media platforms, which asked for "enhanced diligence" on content about ongoing public events. Both came amid street protests in Delhi over the revision of electoral rolls.
A digital rights group, the Internet Freedom Foundation, called the advisories illegal. It argued that content can lawfully be restricted only through reasoned orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and asked MeitY to publish and withdraw them.
Algorithmic Amplification: How Recommendation Systems Shape What We See
When you open Instagram, YouTube or Facebook, posts do not appear in the order they were made. A computer program (an algorithm) ranks them for you, based on what you and people like you clicked, watched or shared before. When this program pushes some posts to far more people than others, we call it algorithmic amplification. It decides what millions of people see first, so it can shape what a whole society talks about.
The October 10, 2026 advisory directly targets algorithmic amplification. It asks Meta to stop its ranking systems from showing users a narrow set of narratives on ongoing events. Supporters see this as a check on misinformation; critics argue the State should not shape what a feed shows about protests without a formal legal order.
Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000: Safe Harbour for Intermediaries
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 protects online platforms (called intermediaries) from being punished for content that their users post. This protection is called safe harbour. A platform keeps it only if it acts as a neutral carrier, follows the "due diligence" rules set by the government, and removes unlawful content when it gets proper notice. If it fails, it can be held liable like the person who posted the content.
The advisory to Meta does not cite a blocking order. Its practical pressure rests on Section 79: a platform that ignores government directions risks losing safe harbour. This is why rights groups insist that any restriction should come through a formal Section 69A order instead.
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives the Central Government the power to order that any information on a computer resource be blocked for the public in India. It is the main legal tool the government uses to take down websites, apps, social media accounts and posts. The government can use it only on fixed grounds, such as the security of the State or public order, and it must record its reasons in writing. A platform that refuses to obey can be punished with jail of up to seven years and a fine.
The October 2026 advisories to Meta and other platforms were not issued as Section 69A blocking orders. This is the heart of the legal debate: critics argue that if the government wants content on protests restricted, the law requires a reasoned 69A order on fixed grounds, not an unpublished advisory. The government's position is that platforms must act to prevent misleading content from disturbing public order.
- Advisory to Meta: October 10, 2026, issued by MeitY's Cyber Laws Division; not published publicly
- General advisory to all platforms: October 8, 2026, seeking "enhanced diligence" on content about ongoing public events
- Asks: review of recommendation and ranking systems, context labels on visuals of ongoing events, assistance to law enforcement, compliance report
- Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000: Central Government's blocking power; penalty up to 7 years for non-compliance
- Section 79(3)(b): loss of safe harbour if a platform does not act on a lawful government notice
- Rule 3(1)(d) of IT Rules, 2021 amended in force from November 15, 2025: notices only by Joint Secretary or DIG rank officers, with monthly Secretary-level review
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): upheld Section 69A; read "actual knowledge" in Section 79 as a court order or government notification
- Sahyog portal (I4C, Ministry of Home Affairs) upheld by Karnataka High Court on September 24, 2025