MeitY not issuing orders to ban social media posts

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is not issuing orders to remove social media posts (takedown orders), a senior ministry official has said. Over the past few weeks, journalists, media organisations, cartoonists and political critics have complained about bans on their posts, videos and accounts on Instagram, Facebook and X. According to a report by Hindustan Times, the senior official clarified that, "We are not sending these takedowns. Ask Meta."

When content is restricted on social media platforms, users are often given very little information. Notifications received from platforms frequently state only that access has been restricted in India based on requests from the government or law enforcement agencies. No consolidated data is available on how many such restriction requests have been complied with by companies. According to a report by The Hindu, users often see messages like "Your post is not available in India," while in other cases it is stated that access is restricted through automated systems implemented under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

It is believed that the primary route for such requests to reach platforms is the 'Sahyog Portal'. This portal is operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, which channels requests from government agencies and the police to online intermediaries. Critics of this portal have long argued that it allows government officials to order the removal of content without following formal blocking rules. These requests are sent under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, which relate to the liability of platforms and their responsibilities regarding information concerning illegal acts.

In contrast, Section 69A of the IT Act is the sole provision under which MeitY issues blocking directions. The Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment because it includes protective safeguards: orders must record reasons, the affected party must be given an opportunity of a hearing, and a review committee oversees decisions. However, Sahyog notices travel a different path. X (formerly Twitter) referred to the Sahyog Portal as a "censorship portal" in a case it challenged in the Karnataka High Court. X argued that Section 79(3)(b) merely determines circumstances in which a platform loses its safe harbour and does not confer any power to block. According to X's documents, officials from the Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, Railways and Finance as well as police officials from over 30 states and union territories were authorised to send notices through this portal.

In its own submissions, the government acknowledged at least one instance of misuse. A notice given by Indian Railways to X to remove a viral video of a woman driving a vehicle on railway tracks was beyond the limits of legal authority, although Solicitor General Tushar Mehta termed it "an isolated incident". The central government defended the portal, calling it a "purely administrative" tool that "neither makes content removal mandatory nor imposes penalties". The High Court also agreed with this view. In September 2025, the High Court dismissed X's petition, calling the portal a "public interest tool", against which X has appealed.

One month after the September 2025 judgment, MeitY amended Rule 3(1)(d) in view of criticisms regarding who could send notices. Now, information or notices for content removal can only be issued by a Joint Secretary or equivalent officer in the Centre or State, or a Director-level officer where the post of Joint Secretary does not exist, or a police officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG). A Secretary-level officer must review each piece of information every month. These safeguards were put to the test in October, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside an August 21 notice issued to Meta, which had blocked the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The court noted that the notice was issued by an officer below the DIG rank and there was no indication that the mandatory monthly review had taken place. The court also ordered that users must also receive a copy of the takedown notice so that they can challenge the blocking.

Mishi Choudhary, founder of SFLC.in and technology lawyer, said, "India is witnessing online takedowns on an unprecedented scale. Platforms blame automated systems or government requests. Now if the government is not issuing these orders, who is? Users cannot be expected to remain trapped in this labyrinth of denials to figure out who censored their speech, on what grounds, and how to challenge it. This opacity makes accountability impossible."

A total of 351 cases of content and account restrictions were recorded over the last 29 days by SFLC.in's Free Speech Tracker. Out of these, 23 cases were linked to legitimate requests under Section 79(3)(b), while 11 cases were linked to requests under Rule 4(4) of the IT Rules, 2021. Over the past month, SFLC's Rightsline Helpline received 28 cases of content restrictions. Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, said, "MeitY has made censorship so efficient that it no longer even needs to issue specific orders. The IT Rules, 2021 and its advisories are making Meta do this work. In the past month alone, 67 requests for help due to account and content restrictions have been received from Instagram users."

According to a report by The Hindu, The Daily Police has issued approximately 300 takedown requests over the past three months, most of which have been accepted by the platforms.