Civil society warns of growing opacity in India’s online content removals
A civil society group has raised concerns about increasing content removals and proposed changes that could expand government authority over online speech in India.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has raised concerns about growing levels of content removal on social media platforms in India and proposed changes that could expand government control over online content.
The issue centres on how content is removed from platforms such as Facebook, X, and Instagram. Users have reported receiving notices stating that their posts or accounts have been ‘withheld in India’, often without clear explanations. These actions are typically linked to Section 69A of India’s IT Act, which allows authorities to order platforms to block content.
In simple terms, Section 69A gives the government the power to require platforms to remove or restrict access to online content. This can be used in cases involving national security, public order, or illegal material. However, IFF argues that in practice, some removals appear to affect political or critical speech, not only unlawful content.
A new proposal under discussion would expand these powers. Currently, final decisions to block content are issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The proposal would allow several ministries, including those responsible for defence and internal security, to issue takedown orders directly.
At the same time, recent amendments to India’s IT Rules have introduced stricter deadlines for platforms. Companies may be required to act within hours of receiving government notices or court orders. This creates pressure to remove content quickly, sometimes without a detailed review.
IFF argues that this combination of expanded authority, rapid timelines, and limited transparency may lead to excessive content removal. The organisation also points to an earlier Supreme Court decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which upheld Section 69A, subject to safeguards such as clear reasoning and the ability to challenge decisions.
The organisation is calling for greater transparency, including clearer explanations to users, publication of blocking orders, and stronger avenues for appeal.
