Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 identifying infringing content from the non-infringing one would lead to impeding free speech and privatized censorship. Further, it would lead to the intermediary in question being liable for contempt of Court for not being able to comply with an Order that is impossible to perform. Thus, intermediaries may only remove content once it receives specific instances of the same and should refrain from doing so proactively. Submissions on behalf of MEITY 37. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned CGSC, has advanced the following submissions of behalf of MEITY: a. Section 79 of the IT Act contains safe harbour provisions for intermediaries as defined under Section 2(1)(w) and these intermediaries must observe due diligence guidelines as prescribed by the Central Government to ensure exemption from liability. The IT Rules enumerates the due diligence that must be observed by all intermediaries, including social media intermediaries and SSMIs. These Rules have been framed for increased user safety as they now allow users/victims to directly approach the intermediaries for requests pertaining to content takedown in specific cases relating to breach of bodily privacy, impersonation, morphed imagery of the concerned individual so as to prevent harm and emotional distress, particularly in instances of revenge porn. Statutory timelines have also been provided for grievance redressal and content takedown. The relevant portion from the Short Affidavit filed on behalf of MEITY is as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 60 of 88