India's Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT has demanded a personal apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg after the company briefly removed a video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi [1].
The dispute centers on whether a global tech giant can unilaterally restrict the content of a head of state. If the committee pursues its threats, Meta could lose the legal immunity that protects social media platforms from being held liable for user-generated content in India.
The video in question was removed during the early hours of July 28, 2026 [3]. While Meta officials expressed regret and offered an apology for the incident, members of the parliamentary panel said that such a gesture was insufficient [1, 4].
Nishikant Dubey, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT, said, "Mark Zuckerberg will have to apologise" [1]. Dubey said that Meta should apologize personally for the brief removal of the Prime Minister’s video [2].
The panel raised concerns regarding algorithmic bias, and the potential impact on public order. The committee said that the removal of the content was unjustified and demanded a higher level of accountability from the company's top leadership.
Beyond the demand for an apology, the committee warned of severe legal consequences. Dubey said, "If Meta does not apologise, its safe‑harbour protection under Section 79 could be at risk" [4].
Section 79 of the Indian IT Act provides the safe-harbour protection that allows intermediaries to avoid liability for third-party content, provided they follow government guidelines [4]. The committee's suggestion that this protection could be jeopardized represents a significant escalation in the regulatory tension between the Indian government and the Menlo Park-based company.
“"Mark Zuckerberg will have to apologise"”
This confrontation signals a tightening of India's grip on digital platforms and a shift toward demanding direct accountability from foreign executives. By threatening Section 79 safe-harbour protections, the Indian government is leveraging a critical legal shield to pressure Meta into compliance with local political sensitivities, potentially setting a precedent for how other global tech firms operate within the country.
