Meta has agreed to report cases related to child sexual abuse and other child-safety concerns to appropriate law enforcement agencies in India, government sources told ANI on September 15. The Centre called the move a “first step” towards making social media platforms safer for children, while stressing that online child safety is “non-negotiable”.
The development follows months of scrutiny over alleged child sexual abuse material (CSAM) appearing in paid Instagram advertisements, as well as government questions over Meta’s content moderation, algorithms and compliance with Indian law.
Meta has maintained that it does not tolerate child exploitation and said it had removed violating advertisements, accounts and links, while reporting apparent child exploitation through the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) under its existing framework.
The government, however, has been pushing for stronger compliance with Indian requirements and has warned that platforms cannot automatically claim safe-harbour protection when laws are violated.
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is separately investigating the allegations and Meta executives appeared before the child rights body on September 9.
Centre Demands Stronger Action
The government’s latest position comes amid sustained engagement with social media companies over harmful online content. Officials said platforms operating in India have a responsibility to proactively identify and remove material such as CSAM, rather than relying only on complaints after such content has already circulated.
“Online safety of children is a fundamental principle for any social media platform operating in India and it is non-negotiable,” government sources said. The Centre has also warned that platforms failing to take proactive steps could face action.
The issue gained urgency after a BBC Eye investigation in July reported that paid advertisements linked to child sexual abuse material were appearing on Instagram in India, with some allegedly directing users to external platforms.
Following the report, the government sought an explanation from Meta and directed it to disable advertisements and content facilitating access to such material. NCPCR subsequently took suo motu cognisance of the allegations, sought Meta’s response and later initiated a formal inquiry. Meta executives appeared before NCPCR on September 9, although details of the questioning have not been made public.
Meta has said it takes child exploitation “seriously” and does not want such material on its platforms. In July, the company said it had removed additional violating advertisements, disabled accounts and blocked URLs after investigating the allegations.
It said its enforcement systems had removed 160,000 accounts in India over six months that were associated with suspicious off-platform links and other signals indicating child-exploitative activity. Meta also said it reports apparent child exploitation to law enforcement through NCMEC and that, in India, such reports are routed to the national cybercrime reporting portal in accordance with the framework it follows.
From Content Removal To Accountability
The government’s concern, however, extends beyond whether Meta removes offending material. During meetings with the company’s global leadership in August, officials sought details about its algorithms, content moderation systems, internal checks, compliance processes and safeguards against CSAM and deepfakes.
Officials also stressed that platforms cannot operate in India solely according to standards developed under US law. “Platforms can’t be run in India as per US law,” government officials said, arguing that companies must comply with Indian legislation and discharge their responsibilities towards society.
The Centre subsequently made its position on safe harbour explicit. Government sources said individuals or entities involved in CSAM-related violations would not be entitled to safe-harbour protection. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides intermediaries with protection from liability for third-party content, subject to specified conditions and due-diligence requirements.
The government has argued that this protection cannot be treated as automatic when platforms fail to meet their legal responsibilities. Officials have also urged Meta to make its moderation systems more sensitive to India’s linguistic and cultural context rather than relying exclusively on global standards.
The debate is also unfolding against a wider legal backdrop. India’s POCSO framework contains reporting obligations relating to offences against children, while the Information Technology Act criminalises several forms of electronic material involving child sexual exploitation.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Just Rights for Children Alliance v S Harish has also examined the responsibilities of intermediaries in dealing with CSAM and the relationship between child-protection laws and intermediary protections. This has made the question of reporting increasingly important alongside the question of removal.
The scrutiny has intensified further as researchers have continued to identify harmful AI-generated material on social media. A recent Tech Transparency Project investigation reported hundreds of advertisements involving AI-generated child sexual abuse imagery on Meta platforms, including advertisements targeted at India. The findings have raised fresh questions about whether existing automated systems can keep pace with increasingly sophisticated forms of synthetic abuse.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Children should never become collateral damage in the race for engagement, advertising revenue or technological growth. Social media platforms have a responsibility that goes beyond removing harmful content after it has been flagged; they must invest in systems capable of preventing abuse, promptly reporting suspected crimes and protecting victims from further harm.
At the same time, stronger regulation must remain transparent, proportionate and rooted in due process, so that child safety does not become a blanket justification for suppressing legitimate expression.
Also read: 3 Italians Fly From Delhi To Munich Without Immigration Clearance; Air India Gets Notice
