On 3 October 2026, Jack Dorsey shared on X a notice from Apple App Review stating that Bitchat had been removed from the India App Store pursuant to a blocking order issued by MeitY under Section 69A of the IT Act. The application is also reported to be unavailable on the Google Play Store, and its website is inaccessible through several Internet Service Providers.
Bitchat is a decentralised, peer-to-peer messaging app that works over Bluetooth mesh, with no internet, cellular connection or central server. Further, the application does not require mandatory registration, and offers end-to-end encryption for messaging. Beyond privacy, its value is resilience, as it helps people communicate through the internet shutdowns that the government imposes during citizen protests. Its popularity in India surged during the repeated, unconstitutional internet shutdowns imposed by the government around Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, during the NEET UG protests in July 2026.
Dorsey’s post suggests that the developers were neither heard nor served with a blocking order, and learned of the block only through Apple’s notice. The lack of prior notice and hearing, and the unavailability of the blocking order, reflect a wider problem.
In consistent practice, Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules 2009 are applied in a manner that defeats the safeguards on which the Supreme Court upheld their validity in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. Rule 8 is interpreted in such a manner that prior notice is sent only to the intermediary, so the originator of the information is not heard before the blocking order is issued. Moreover, under Rule 16, strict confidentiality keeps the order concealed and deprives the originator of the ability to seek a judicial remedy against it. This renders the blocking process under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules unconstitutional.
Alarmed by this pattern and concerned about the violation of citizens’ digital and constitutional rights, SFLC.in filed a PIL in February 2025, titled ‘Software Freedom Law Center, India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.’, bearing W.P.(C) No. 161/2025. It is pending before the Supreme Court. The PIL challenges Rules 8 and 16 as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. SFLC.in seeks to have Rule 16 struck down, and Rule 8 struck down or read down in such a manner that notice to the originator becomes mandatory.
As of now, no blocking order for Bitchat is publicly available, and without it the specific grounds relied upon cannot be assailed. However, in any event, using Section 69A to block an entire application that enables communication is highly disproportionate.
Moreover, this block immediately followed the internet shutdown imposed by the government on 2.10.2026 during a protest at Jantar Mantar. This timing gives rise to a strong inference that the application may have been targeted because it enables communication during internet shutdowns and protests. Enabling communication among protesters cannot, in any circumstance, be a valid ground for blocking an application under Article 19(2) or Section 69A.
SFLC.in strongly urges the government to withdraw its orders directing Apple, Google and internet service providers to block public access to the Bitchat application, as these orders are unconstitutional and violate citizens’ rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
SFLC.in also calls upon Apple to firmly stand by the fundamental rights of its users in India. Apple should not give effect to the order mechanically, and should diligently take all appropriate steps, including legal remedies, to ensure that it does not become complicit in the violation of its users’ fundamental rights.
Please find a detailed statement by SFLC.in on this issue below:
