Listen to this article:

New Delhi: The Union government has invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block multiple social media posts critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his foreign policy.

The takedowns coincide with a broader wave of blocking orders over the past month, which users report also targeted accounts criticising the University Grants Commission’s Equity Regulations. Because the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issues these directives under strict confidentiality, evidence of the censorship has emerged directly from users publishing their takedown notices.

Comprehensive statistics are not available due to this confidentiality. However, according to this report by The Hindu, the most up-to-date data from Meta shows that the parent company of Instagram and Facebook took down three times as much content in response to government orders between January and June 2025 than in the same period in 2023. X does not currently publish transparency reports for government takedowns.

On March 10, 2026, cartoonist Satish Acharya stated that X withheld two of his cartoons depicting India-Iran relations and the United States. The first cartoon, titled “India-Iran dosti is as old as history!”, depicted Modi blindfolded alongside a body labelled “Killed by USA & Israel”. The second showed a figure wearing a US flag hat with the caption, “Iran’s Irisdena ship returning from naval exercise in India destroyed by US submarine”.

“Though this government has lots of ‘tejaswi log’ [brilliant people], let me share a pro-tip,” Acharya stated. “My experience for the last 15 years on social media teaches me that whenever any government or politician tries to stop a cartoon by force, that cartoon normally reaches 10 times more readers.”

A review of the notices shared by users shows that the government targeted a wide array of content, ranging from satirical memes to opposition political commentary. The notices sent by X advise users that while the platform is legally obligated to withhold the content in India, users wishing to contest the order can contact MeitY directly at cyberlaw@meity.gov.in.

For all orders reviewed over the past month, X has explicitly notified users that takedowns were issued under Section 69A of the IT Act. This specific disclosure has been absent in the past, with the platform previously referring only generically to a “legal demand”. While many more users are posting similar screenshots of takedown notices across platforms, the instances covered below are those independently verified by The Wire.

Targeted accounts and content

Journalist Sushant Singh, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and the handle ‘Amockx2022’ received notices for posts highlighting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s statements regarding Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri. Singh’s withheld post featured a news clipping and claimed the country was unique in having a minister with a “proven connection” to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein serving in the Cabinet.

Bhushan’s post featured a graphic of global arrests and resignations tied to the Epstein case, alleging that Puri remains in office despite being “thick as thieves” with Epstein. Bhushan’s post also referenced Modi’s visit to Israel. The ‘Amockx2022’ account received a similar notice for sharing a video of Gandhi, alleging that the minister’s name was being used “just to blackmail” and that Modi had “surrendered” due to other names in the files.

User ‘Honest Cricket Lover’ had a post withheld that contained a list of allegations against the prime minister, claiming  Modi stopped the war with Pakistan on the orders of former US President Donald Trump, signed a US-India trade deal against Indian interests, and stopped Russian oil purchases at the behest of the US. The post further questioned if Modi had made India an “unofficial slave of the USA” following the alleged downing of an Iranian ship.

Also read: Special | Inside Sahyog’s Manual: Modi Government’s Online Censorship Method Revealed

User ‘Gss’ posted a video thumbnail titled “India’s foreign policy right now” featuring a laughing man, while user ‘BobbySmith5558’ was blocked for posting a quote about foreign investors and colonisation, alongside hashtags including #Jews and #Israel. Posts by Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia referring to a viral mistranscription of a Sanskrit subhashita by Modi were also removed.

A post by the handle ‘Team Saath Official’ reading “Yeh to darr gayi sarkar” [This government is scared] featuring an edited image of Modi saluting Trump was blocked. The image included the text, “Sir, may I go to toilet?” Another user, ‘SirKazam’, faced a takedown for a text post reading, “Sher Paala Hai (Conditions Apply)” and “56 Inch* *only till 12 nautical miles”.

The Wire was targeted with takedown notices on both X and Instagram for two satirical music videos featuring  Modi, and a repost by its founding editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, was also removed. Furthermore, Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate stated on February 14 that nine AI-generated satirical posts by the party, which were duly labelled as required by the IT Rules, were taken down.

On Instagram, accounts critical of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, were withheld in India. These included the account of Hindu activist Sarthak Bhagat, who has over 2.7 lakh followers, and ‘@woke_kashmiri’, a right-wing account with over two lakh followers.

Legal framework and lack of transparency

Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society, highlighted these actions on X, sharing the ‘Team Saath Official’ takedown notice with the hashtags #69A and #censorship. He stated that these orders are “unconstitutional”, as they give users little opportunity to be heard beforehand and lack a “public, reasoned order”.

In a June 2024 paper published in the Indian Public Policy Review, Prakash examined the legal framework enabling these directives. He noted that the law falls short of the requirements imposed by international human rights law regarding legality, legitimate aims and proportionality.

Prakash wrote that Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 mandates “strict confidentiality” for these government requests. This lack of transparency, he submitted, effectively prevents affected parties from challenging a ban. Even if users are notified of a block, they receive no clarity on which entity ordered it, on what specific legal grounds, or how to seek a remedy.

Also read: Hasna Mana Hai: The Joke Is on the Modi Government

While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case based on the existence of procedural safeguards, Prakash argued that the opacity created by Rule 16 enables “invisible censorship”. He noted that the Shreya Singhal judgment explicitly held that “reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order[s] so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

He also contrasted the current secrecy with the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, where the Supreme Court ruled that a democracy “mandates the production of orders” regarding Internet shutdowns, though this precedent has not yet been applied to website blocking orders.

The paper further states that Section 69A allows the Centre to block content if it is satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient” to do so.

“Expedience—the quality of being fit or suitable to cause some desired end—is clearly a far lesser standard than necessity,”  Prakash noted in the paper. He added that such measures impose extreme burdens on freedom of expression, lack mandated time limits for the blocks, and exhibit a deficit in the rule of law.

Adding to the pressure on platforms, the timeline for social media companies to lose “safe harbour” from legal liability for users’ posts under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act has been shortened from 24 to 36 hours down to two to three hours. While these specific law enforcement notices are not legally binding in the same way as Section 69A orders, firms are left with little choice but to comply rapidly, as they lack the time to determine if a post is genuinely illegal.

© The Wire