Government Denies Role in Social Media Takedown Orders Amid Rising Restrictions
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has clarified that it is not responsible for issuing takedown orders on social media platforms. This statement comes in light of numerous reports from journalists, media representatives, cartoonists, and political commentators who have faced unexpected restrictions on their posts and accounts across platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) in recent weeks.
These affected users received minimal communication regarding the nature of the restrictions. Notifications from the platforms often indicate that access has been limited in India due to requests from the government or law enforcement, but there is no clear data on how many such requests have been acquiesced to by the companies.
A senior official from MeitY stated, “We are not sending these takedowns. Please check with Meta.” His comments suggest that requests may reach social media companies through alternate pathways, primarily via the Sahyog portal. This portal operates under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which channels requests from government bodies to online platforms. Critics argue that this system permits officials to remove content without the necessary checks that surround formal blocking processes.
According to Section 69A of the IT Act, the only legal framework that allows MeitY to issue content-blocking orders has specific safeguards. The Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment upheld these safeguards, which require documented justifications for orders, provision for a hearing for the affected party, and oversight by a review committee.
In contrast, the Sahyog notices are dispatched under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. These regulations outline a platform’s liability protections regarding user-generated content and govern its obligations in situations involving unlawful activities.
In a challenge to the Karnataka High Court, X referred to the Sahyog portal as a “censorship portal,” asserting that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant any authority to block content. Their legal filings revealed that officials from various ministries and police in over 30 states had the power to issue notices through this portal, creating a situation where each officer decides what is deemed unlawful.
Critically, the government itself acknowledged that at least one misuse of the system occurred. It admitted that a notice from Indian Railways aiming to remove a viral video had overstepped lawful boundaries, although the Solicitor General labeled it an “isolated incident.”
Defending the Sahyog portal, the Center described it as a “purely administrative” tool that does not mandate content removal or impose penalties. The Karnataka High Court upheld this view in a September 2025 ruling, labeling the portal “an instrument of public good,” although X has filed an appeal against this decision.
In response to growing concerns, MeitY recently amended Rule 3(1)(d). Now, only specific high-ranking officials can issue takedown notices, and these must undergo monthly reviews by a secretary-level officer.
This month, a ruling from the Punjab and Haryana High Court voided a notice that had blocked the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The court concluded that the notice was issued by an officer ranked below DIG, and the required monthly review process was not demonstrated.
The court mandated that users must receive copies of any takedown notifications sent to platforms, enabling them to dispute the action. This requirement addresses a significant gap in the Sahyog protocol that had been previously criticized.
Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of SFLC.in, expressed concern over the rising number of online takedown cases, noting that platforms often attribute this to automated systems or government requests. “If the government isn’t issuing orders, then who is? Users shouldn’t have to decipher who is censoring their speech and why. This lack of transparency makes accountability impossible,” she remarked.
In just the past month, SFLC.in’s Free Speech Tracker recorded 351 instances of content and account restrictions, with several involving requests under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 4(4) of the IT Rules, 2021.
Additionally, the organization’s RightsLine, which offers free assistance for digital rights issues, received 28 cases concerning content restrictions in the same timeframe.
Apar Gupta, from the Internet Freedom Foundation, stated that MeitY has made censorship so efficient that specific orders are no longer necessary. “The IT Rules, 2021 have Meta doing the enforcement for them,” he noted, highlighting a spike in requests for assistance from Instagram users facing account issues.
As of now, Meta has not responded to any inquiries regarding this matter.
