Indian Parliamentary Panel Seeks Apology from Meta CEO Over Removed Modi Video
India's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology has demanded an apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg for the temporary removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook video.

India's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology has demanded an apology from Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg for the temporary removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook video. Committee chairperson Nishikant Dubey stated on Monday that the company could lose its "safe harbour" protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act if an apology is not issued.
Dubey described the removal of the video, which Meta admitted lasted for five hours, as a very serious matter. He also expressed concerns that Meta's algorithms are giving greater visibility to newly formed protest groups than to established political parties. The committee also met with representatives from other digital platforms, including Google, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Snapchat, to discuss the regulation of social and digital platforms.
The scrutiny follows a recent incident where India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology summoned Meta's global affairs chief, Joel Kaplan, regarding the removal of Modi's video. The ministry questioned the company's content moderation practices and sought a detailed audit trail of how the post was reported, restricted, and restored.
According to Dubey, Meta apologized to the committee, stating the video's removal was an error. However, several committee members reportedly emphasized that accountability, not just an apology, was crucial. The committee also raised concerns about illegal content, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and content related to violence against women, present on the platforms, demanding stricter measures for its removal.
Opposition MPs on the panel cautioned against political influence in content moderation decisions and argued that criticism of the government should not be equated with "anti-national content." They stressed that technology should be regulated, not democracy, and that dissent should not be criminalized.