Reports of social media posts and accounts being restricted in India have renewed questions about how online content is removed, who can request its removal and whether affected users receive adequate explanations.
Users of Instagram, Facebook and X have encountered notices saying their content is unavailable in India or restricted following a legal request.
The complaints have emerged amid protests over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Why Are Posts Being Restricted?
Several users, including journalists, commentators and artists, have described restrictions on posts, reels and accounts. Some notices refer to Indian legal requirements without identifying the government authority that requested action.
Political activists have alleged that thousands of posts and accounts have been affected. Those figures have not been independently established, and individual restrictions cannot automatically be attributed to a government order. Platforms also remove or limit content under their own rules and automated moderation systems.
What Has the Government Said?
Officials from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) have denied asking Meta to remove particular Instagram posts or restrict specific accounts. However, government agencies and police can send content-related requests through other authorised channels.
https://the420.in/fcrf-certified-chief-ai-officer-second-cohort-november-2026/
MeitY issued advisories in October calling for greater care over misleading content, manipulated visuals and AI-generated material. An advisory directed at Meta also addressed how content is distributed and recommended, while recognising that lawful public discussion should not be unnecessarily restricted.
How Does the Sahyog Portal Work?
The Sahyog portal, operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre under the Union Home Ministry, relays content-related intimations from government agencies and police to online platforms.
Its procedures have become contested. X argued in court that the system could enable content removal without the safeguards associated with formal blocking orders. The Centre maintained that Sahyog is an administrative coordination mechanism rather than a system that independently orders removals or imposes penalties.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed X’s challenge in September 2025. The company subsequently appealed the decision.
Which Laws Apply to Takedowns?
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act allows the Central Government to direct blocking of public access to online information on specified legal grounds, subject to procedural safeguards.
Section 79(3)(b) deals with the conditions under which online intermediaries can lose protection from liability for third-party content. Alongside Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, it forms part of the framework for action after a qualifying court order or authorised government intimation.
These routes are legally distinct. A content restriction therefore needs to be assessed against the precise authority and procedure used, rather than assuming every platform notice represents the same kind of order.
What Changed Under the IT Rules?
Amendments introduced in 2025 strengthened authorisation requirements. Government intimations must come from officers of Joint Secretary rank or equivalent, or specially authorised police officers of Deputy Inspector General rank or above. They must identify the disputed material and legal basis, with senior-level periodic review.
Further amendments effective in February 2026 shortened the period for intermediaries to act on qualifying court orders or authorised intimations under Rule 3(1)(d) from 36 hours to three hours.
The shorter period has intensified debate over whether platforms have sufficient opportunity to examine disputed material before restricting access.
What Did the High Court Decide?
In an October 5 ruling involving the blocked Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a police intimation issued by an officer below the required rank.
The court also held that the affected user must receive a copy of the intimation sent to the platform, allowing the restriction to be challenged. The ruling highlighted the importance of both proper authorisation and fair notice.
How Widespread Are the Restrictions?
Digital rights group SFLC.in recorded 351 reported instances of content or account restrictions over 29 days, according to figures cited in the debate. Separately, Delhi Police reportedly issued around 300 takedown requests over three months, with most acted upon.
These numbers cover different time periods and measures and should not be combined into a verified national total.
Users facing restrictions can seek an explanation from the platform’s grievance officer, pursue the available appeal mechanism or challenge an allegedly unlawful government direction in court. The wider issue is ensuring that harmful content can be addressed without leaving lawful speech restricted through opaque or improperly authorised decisions.
About the Author – Ayesha Aayat writes on cybercrime, fraud, scams, cybersecurity, digital safety, and emerging threats.
