Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 harbour provision under Section 79is only available to intermediaries as long as they perform their legal obligations under Section 79(3)(b). b. Section 79(3)(b) stipulates that the obligation bestowed upon the intermediary extends beyond taking down the content in particular URLs and includes content that is found to be unlawful by a judicial order. Any limitation would render the statute and its purpose to be otiose, and thus, cannot be accepted. c. Rule 3 of the IT Rules mandates removal of content by intermediaries, with Rule 3(1)(b) enlisting the content that is considered unlawful, including content that belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right, and content that is invasive of another’s privacy (including bodily privacy). Rule 3(1)(d) mandates the intermediary to remove unlawful content within thirty-six hours of receiving actual knowledge of a Court order or an order by a competent authority. Apart from a Court order or an order by a competent authority, Rule 3(2)(b) requires intermediaries to take down content within twenty-four hours of receiving a complaint in relation to the offending content. d. The ratio of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (supra) with regard to “actual knowledge” being construed as communication of Court order to the intermediaries is not applicable in the instant case as herein, the Court has already adjudicated upon the unlawfulness of the content, and that Rule 3(2)(b) which provides for a grievance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 39 of 88