The government's two routes to getting social media posts taken down, explained

India uses two legal routes for social media removals: Section 69A permits blocking orders on specified grounds, and Section 79 targets unlawful content.

On October 8, the IT ministry (MeitY) asked social media companies to give priority to complaints from authorised government agencies about content that could affect public order. The advisory came as protests in Mumbai and Delhi demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. A MeitY official said the advisory is general in nature and not just about the current protests.

A contentious part of this system is the Sahyog Portal, set up by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Home Ministry. (Unsplash/ Representational)

The advisory has raised concerns that the government may send more takedown requests to social media companies during the protests.

But how does the government get social media companies to take down content?

The Indian government has two main legal routes under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The Supreme Court has upheld the first, while the second is under challenge in court from Elon Musk-owned X (previously Twitter).

Route 1: Section 69A

Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the Centre, acting through the IT ministry, to order the blocking of content. It can do so only on specific grounds: the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, state security, friendly relations with other countries, public order, or preventing incitement to a cognisable offence relating to any of these. The order is binding on the platform, and a platform that does not comply can be punished with up to seven years in prison and a fine.

This is considered the correct route largely because of the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India. In that case the court struck down Section 66A, which criminalised "offensive" online speech, calling it vague and a threat to free speech. But it upheld Section 69A, noting that the power is narrow, limited to the grounds allowed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and backed by procedural safeguards, including recorded reasons and the right to challenge an order in court.

Most recently, the government blocked the messaging app Bitchat for three days under Section 69A, then extended the order by three more days ahead of the October 10 protests. The Internet Freedom Foundation called the move unconstitutional and asked MeitY to publish the blocking order. Under Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, such orders are kept confidential.

Route 2: Section 79

Section 79 gives platforms "safe harbour", which means they are not legally responsible for what users post. But Section 79(3)(b) says a platform can lose that protection if it is notified that content is unlawful and fails to remove it quickly. Takedown notices from authorised government agencies, which MeitY's October 8 advisory asks platforms to prioritise, are issued under this provision.

Here too, Shreya Singhal is the sticking point. The Supreme Court read this clause narrowly, holding that a platform needs to act only when it receives a court order or a government notification, and that the content must fall within the Article 19(2) grounds. Critics argue that the notices sent today go well beyond that, with no hearing, no review committee and often no published reasons.

X challenged this in the Karnataka High Court in March 2025, arguing that blocking can be done only through Section 69A and that Section 79(3)(b) cannot be used as a parallel route. In September 2025, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed X's petition, and the company has appealed.

The Sahyog Portal

The most contentious part of this system is the Sahyog Portal, set up by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Home Ministry. Sahyog is how Route 2 works in practice: law enforcement agencies use it to send Section 79(3)(b) notices, under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, directly to platforms.

Supporters say it speeds up the removal of illegal content and cuts paperwork. Critics say it works outside the safeguards of Section 69A, with no review committee and little public record of what is being removed and why. The government told the Karnataka High Court in 2025 that 38 intermediaries, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram, had joined the portal. X refused to join and challenged the requirement in court.

In July 2025, X's counsel told the Karnataka High Court it was dangerous if "every Tom, Dick and Harry" officer could send takedown notices. After the high court ruled against X, MeitY amended Rule 3(1)(d) in October 2025 to require senior-level authorisation. Content removal intimations can now be issued only by a Joint Secretary or equivalent officer at the Central or State Government level, or a Director-level officer where no Joint Secretary exists. A police officer of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) rank or above can also issue them. Lower-ranking officers can no longer send these notices. Each intimation must also give reasons, citing the law invoked and the specific unlawful act, and a secretary-level officer reviews the notices every month. The changes took effect on November 1, 2025.

Under the IT Rules as amended in February 2026, platforms must act on government takedown orders within three hours, and on complaints about nudity, sexual content or impersonation within two hours. Critics say deadlines this short leave platforms little room to question an order or seek legal advice before complying.