The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology on Wednesday sought an “unqualified apology” from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's removal of a reel featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi, warning that the social media platform could risk losing its legal immunity in India.
The committee, in a letter to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), raised serious objections to Facebook's decision to remove a video of PM Modi addressing students and Gen Z on examination-related controversies and paper leaks for nearly 5 to 6 hours, according to ANI.
It asked Zuckerberg to issue an unconditional apology within three days of receiving the communication. The committee warned that failure to comply could result in the withdrawal of the legal protection available under Section 79(3) of the Information Technology Act, with Zuckerberg potentially treated as a publisher and subject to action accordingly.
People also ask
AI powered insights from this story
The committee demanded an apology due to Facebook's removal of a video featuring Prime Minister Modi, warning that failure to comply could jeopardize Meta's legal immunity in India.
The committee believes Zuckerberg should apologize because the removal of PM Modi's content is a serious issue, especially since it allegedly went missing for over five hours.
Meta could lose its safe harbour protection if it fails to issue an apology for the removal of the Prime Minister's video, as this would be viewed as not fulfilling its legal obligations.
Safe harbour refers to the legal immunity granted to online platforms that host user-generated content, which requires them to take prompt action against prohibited content to maintain that immunity.
Meta expressed regret for the incident, restored the video, and indicated they were establishing new protocols regarding the handling of content from prominent individuals to prevent future issues.
The move comes after a meeting on 3 August 2026, attended by officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)and MeitY, as well as representatives of major digital platforms, including Meta, Google, X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat, and YouTube, to deliberate on the regulation of social media platforms.
Meta-owned Facebook temporarily blocked access to the Prime Minister's video last month before restoring it several hours later.
Released on 23 July, the video marked PM Modi's first direct message to Gen Z amid nationwide protests over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
In the address, PM Modi assured students that the government would introduce tougher measures to curb examination paper leaks, stating that stricter legal provisions would be placed before the Union Cabinet.
Earlier, committee chairperson and BJP MP from Godda, Nishikant Dubey, stated Meta had acknowledged that PM Modi's video remained unavailable on the platform for more than four hours.
“Meta India removed the Prime Minister's content. This is not the first time Meta India has done this. If you recall, Zuckerberg himself made a statement in January regarding the 2024 elections and later apologised. This shows that his intention is to destabilise the country,” ANI quoted Dubey as saying.
He added, “When a video of the Prime Minister of India can be removed, and they themselves admitted that the content was missing for five hours, from 12:30 AM to 5:00 am, this is a very serious matter", noting, “Our committee has said two things and has clearly stated that the apology should come from Zuckerberg. If Zuckerberg does not give it, then the safe harbour protection under Section 79 should be withdrawn from him.”
Safe harbour refers to the conditional legal immunity granted to online platforms that host user-generated content. Under the Information Technology (IT) Rules, intermediaries, including social media platforms, are required to fulfil specific legal obligations to maintain a safe and trustworthy online environment. These include taking prompt action to remove prohibited misinformation, patently false content and deepfakes.
Failure to comply with these obligations can result in intermediaries losing the safe harbour protection available under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
