The Centre has issued an advisory to social media platforms, asking them to prioritise complaints from authorised government agencies concerning content that could potentially disrupt law and order in the country. The advisory came amid protests in major Indian cities demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. While officials have described it as a routine procedure, the move has renewed debate over how the government regulates internet access and social media content during protests and crises.
The Centre has two primary legal routes under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, to get social media posts or accounts blocked or taken down.
First Route: Section 69A
Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the Central Government to block online content in the interest of national security or public order. The provision can be invoked only under specified circumstances, including threats to India’s sovereignty and integrity, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or the prevention of incitement to cognisable offences related to these grounds.
Blocking orders can be issued only under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, commonly known as the Blocking Rules, 2009.
Requests from ministries or state governments are examined by a designated committee of officials. The concerned platform or user is given an opportunity to present their case, and an order is issued only after final approval from the IT Secretary. In addition, a committee at the Cabinet level reviews the legal validity of these orders every two months.
In the landmark 2015 case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional but upheld Section 69A. The court observed that Section 69A contains procedural safeguards, including the recording of written reasons and the possibility of judicial review, which help ensure that restrictions on freedom of expression remain within the permissible limits under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
More recently, the government invoked this provision to block the messaging app Bitchat on security grounds. However, the confidentiality of blocking orders under Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules has drawn criticism from digital rights organisations, including the Internet Freedom Foundation.
Second Route: Section 79 And Takedown Notices
Section 79 of the IT Act provides social media platforms and other intermediaries with ‘safe harbour’ protection. This means that a platform is generally protected from direct legal liability for unlawful content posted by its users, provided it meets the applicable legal requirements.
Under Section 79(3)(b), if a platform is notified by the government or a court that content hosted on its service is unlawful and fails to remove or disable access to it, it may lose its safe harbour protection. This could expose the company to legal proceedings over the content.
The Supreme Court has clarified that takedown notices under Section 79 must be based on a court order or a notification by the appropriate government or its agency, and must fall within the grounds specified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Legal Challenge: X Vs Government Of India
Social media platform X, formerly Twitter, challenged the use of this legal route before the Karnataka High Court. X argued that Section 69A should be the exclusive legal mechanism for blocking online content and that Section 79(3)(b) should not be used as a parallel or unchecked route for issuing takedown directions.
The High Court dismissed X’s petition. An appeal against the decision is currently pending.
To streamline the implementation of Section 79, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, launched the Sahyog portal.
The integrated digital platform enables law enforcement agencies to send takedown notices directly to social media companies and other intermediaries under the IT Rules. Dozens of intermediaries, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram, have joined the platform.
Rule Changes To Prevent Misuse Of Powers
The practice of allowing lower-ranking police officers to issue takedown notices initially triggered concerns over the potential misuse of these powers. The government subsequently introduced significant amendments to the IT Rules, including Rule 3(1)(d), which came into effect on November 1, 2025.
Under the revised framework, only civil servants at the level of Joint Secretary or Director, or police officers holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) or above, can issue such takedown notices. Officials at the Secretary level are also required to review these orders every month.
The amended IT Rules have significantly tightened the deadlines for compliance with government takedown directions. Platforms are required to act on general takedown orders within three hours, while complaints involving nudity, sexual content or impersonation must be addressed within two hours.
Balancing freedom of expression on social media with national security and public order has long been a complex challenge. While Section 69A provides for a more elaborate process with procedural safeguards, Section 79 and the Sahyog portal enable the government to seek faster action, particularly during emergencies or rapidly evolving protests.
In the digital age, the scope of these powers and the safeguards governing their use remain important subjects of legal and constitutional debate in India.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
