Statement on Opaque and Arbitrary Takedowns of Online Speech

The recent wave of content takedowns and account suspensions on X, including the blocking of journalists, commentators, parody accounts, and journalistic content raises serious concerns about the legality, proportionality, and constitutionality of current content regulation practices.

News reports indicate that over the last few weeks, several posts and accounts on platforms such as X and Instagram that reportedly critiqued and satirised the Union government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have been “withheld” due to an unspecified “legal demand”. This trend is not limited to X and Instagram; but reflects a broader pattern of takedowns characterized by arbitrary, opaque content removals with limited avenues of redress. In February 2026, The Wire, an independent news media organization with 1.3 million followers on Instagram, had their account blocked for over two hours over an animated cartoon critical of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The current practice of issuing vague or non-speaking orders that invoke generic grounds such as “anti-social elements” or “misinformation” is inconsistent with the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The Supreme Court upheld Section 69A (Power to Issue…blocking of public access to any information) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 strictly because it required that blocking orders must be reasoned, necessary, and proportionate, and that such reasons must be recorded in writing to enable judicial review.

Further, the opacity surrounding these takedowns go against the strict requirements of accountability, and record-keeping embedded in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Instead, what we see emerging through these takedowns is a system of informal, decentralised censorship, where the government can direct content removals without transparency or oversight. The lack of information renders meaningful legal challenge impossible and leaves affected parties without legal redressal.

These actions must also be viewed alongside the emerging trend of the Union Government decentralising content blocking powers across Central and State Government officials raising critical questions regarding hierarchy and authorisation under law. Recent fortification of content takedown through the Sahyog Portal under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, occurs in a manner that side-steps the procedure laid down in Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules, and enables multiple lower-level government agencies to coordinate content blocking requests without any need for pre-decision hearing to the user as required by the law and validated by the judgment in Shreya Singhal. Further, news reports indicate that the Union government intends to further expand blocking powers under Section 69A to additional ministries, and perhaps even regulators like the SEBI.

Read alongside the reduced content blocking timelines through the recent IT Rules amendments for Synthetically Generated Information, this arbitrary expansion of blocking powers would only increase the scale of opaque, decentralised, executive-led censorship of dissenting content that critiques the status quo. X Corp has challenged the Sahyog portal last year before the Karnataka High Court, citing these very same concerns, and the appeal remains pending. Against this backdrop, its reported compliance with such “legal demands” raises concerns regarding transparency and due process.

SFLC.in has consistently emphasised the need for transparency, and primacy of user rights in content moderation. Satirical content and parody speech have traditionally been afforded a high degree of protection globally, and these arbitrary takedowns undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech. Despite the gravity of the potential fundamental rights violation, the relevant authorities have neither provided the blocking order nor informed the users of any specific legal violation, while disabling these accounts, many with substantial followings overnight. The cumulative, and perhaps intended, effect of these developments is the creation of a black-box censorship regime, where users are silenced without any transparency or accessible remedies. It effectively positions the State to determine what forms of narrative expression, including satire and parody, are acceptable, rather than leaving such determinations to audiences and the marketplace of ideas, an approach that does not reconcile with the principles of a mature democracy.

This is contrary to the rule of law and to India’s constitutional commitment to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). As the recent wave of takedowns indicate, under such a system there would be no transparency, accountability, or possibility for legal challenge.

In light of the above, SFLC.in calls for the following:

Immediate disclosure of all blocking orders issued under Section 69A in these cases, including specific reasons and legal justifications.
Strict adherence to the procedural safeguards under Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules, which were upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal.
Publication of anonymized, periodic transparency reports by both the government and intermediaries detailing the volume, origin, and legal basis of takedown requests and orders issued through any legal channel for content takedown.
Immediate halt to the expansion of blocking powers to more ministries and government officials, whether through the Sahyog Portal or proposed extensions of Section 69A to multiple ministries, until robust accountability frameworks are in place.
Strengthening of independent oversight and appellate mechanisms to ensure that users can effectively challenge unlawful restrictions.

The suppression of critical journalism, satire, and political commentary through opaque executive action is not a legitimate regulatory objective. It is censorship. Left unchecked, these practices risk normalising a system where online speech is controlled not by law, but by unaccountable discretion at the hands of government actors.

About SFLC.in

SFLC.IN is a donor supported legal services organization that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, students, and technologists to protect freedom in the digital world. SFLC.IN promotes innovation and open access to knowledge by helping developers make great Free and Open-Source Software, protect privacy and civil liberties for citizens in the digital world by educating and providing free legal advice and help policy makers make informed and just decisions with the use and adoption of technology.

References: