The Indian government’s move to block a news website and several social media accounts amid escalating tensions between India and Pakistan without any orders stating the reasons for this may violate the legal framework that allows online content to be taken down, experts said.
The latest block was imposed on Friday morning on The Wire. The website of the media organisation’s English-language section was blocked by internet service providers on orders from the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The blocking order was not communicated to The Wire. The website was restored by the government on Saturday after it took down a report flagged by the authorities.
On Thursday, social media platform X’s Global Government Affairs account said that the Indian government had ordered the firm to block over 8,000 accounts in India. These included “accounts belonging to international news organisations and prominent X users”, it said.
Among the X accounts blocked are those belonging to news portals BBC Urdu, Maktoob Media, The Kashmiriyat and Free Press Kashmir.
X’s Global Government Affairs unit stated that the government had not specified which posts of the accounts in question had violated Indian law.
Earlier on Thursday, the Instagram account of United States-based news portal Muslim was blocked in response to legal demands by the government.
On April 29, the YouTube channel of 4 PM News, a digital news outlet, was blocked. YouTube said that the channel’s page was “unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order”. It is not yet clear what led the government to order the blocking of the channel.
The Centre is empowered to order takedown of online content under the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the authorities can do so only after laying out their reasons for doing so in writing.
The spate of blocking orders, experts warned, will hurt the free flow of information in India – and weaken democracy.
X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company’s local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to…
— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025
Legal framework for online blocking
The Centre is empowered to order any online content to be blocked under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Such an order can be made on the grounds that the content harms India’s sovereignty and integrity, national security, defence, international relations, public order or could incite a crime to be committed related to these grounds.
These authorisations broadly correlate with the grounds for the freedom of speech and expression to be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The rules for blocking content are laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Under these rules, anyone can ask the government to block online content under Section 69A. If found valid, the request goes to a committee of senior bureaucrats.
The platform that hosts the content is usually notified and allowed to respond. In emergencies, content can be blocked first and reviewed later. But the rules do not explain what counts as an emergency.
Since there is no appellate or review provision under the rules, the only way for a blocking order to be challenged is for a writ petition to be filed before a High Court.
In a 2015 judgement, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the 2009 rules. However, it made the exercise of the blocking power conditional on orders laying out the reasons for doing so in writing. This is so that the orders can be scrutinised by a High Court if they are challenged.
The government’s practice of issuing blocking orders without disclosing them to the affected parties violated the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgement, said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director and Senior International Counsel at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. Chima had argued in the Supreme Court in the case.
Technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary criticised the opacity of the government’s conduct. “The government of India has established a structure wherein it can order the blocking of content without transparency,” she said. “Such broad powers to remove content are not envisaged under Section 69A.”
Despite this, the Union government has in recent years made a practice of arbitrarily taking down online content without notifying account users. This was especially evident during the farmers’ protests in North India in 2024.
This power to block content critical of the authorities without any checks was bolstered by the Karnataka High Court in 2023. The court ruled that the state was empowered to issue blocking orders not only for certain posts, but for entire accounts on X. It also affirmed that the government could extend such orders indefinitely.
It added that the Centre was not legally required to notify the user or owner of the content about the blocking order. It was sufficient merely to notify the online platform or website host of the order.
Without such notification, it is impossible for the owner of a blocked website or social media account to know why they have been blocked and challenge such orders before a High Court.
A petition challenging the confidentiality of blocking orders is pending before the Supreme Court.
Choudhary pointed out that this leaves the target of a blocking order with no legal recourse. “Because of the secrecy, they don’t have enough information to appeal even if they have the resources to approach the High Court,” she said.
If the blocking of 4PM News was ordered under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and its accompanying rules, then the legal order must be disclosed.
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) April 29, 2025
Without it, we are left to guess — Was the entire channel blocked permanently? What specific content was found to be…
Easier alternative?
Chima also flagged the possibility of the government circumventing the already-lax requirements of Section 69A through a path of even less resistance: the use of takedown notices under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
Section 79 states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, could lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an “unlawful act” despite being told to do so by government authorities.
Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question.
“What the government does through Section 79 is that they send a platform a takedown notice for some account claiming that something is illegal,” he said. “This is a threat to the company: You’ve been brought to actual knowledge about illegal content. If you don’t take this down, you’ll be directly legally responsible for what’s happening.”
If the company refuses, it may face “potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company’s local employees”, as X’s Global Government Affairs account stated in its statement on Thursday.
“Section 69A is an overbroad provision that doesn’t have sufficient checks and balances for a constitutional democracy like India,” Chima contended. “What the government has been trying to do very often is not even follow those checks and balances.”
In March, X filed a lawsuit against the Union government in the Karnataka High Court against this provision. It argued that the government is misusing Section 79 to censor online content to bypass the requirements of Section 69A.
Inimical to India
This trend of opaque blocking orders is especially harmful during a time of rampant disinformation and misinformation about rising tensions between India and Pakistan, experts say.
Chima contended that when information is withheld, it is likely to harm India’s interests. “The lesson we’ve seen from conflicts is that the Constitution needs to continue operating, including during military situations because that is the only way you ensure the integrity of our institutions,” he said. “That is what the armed forces also serve for, right? They’re there to uphold the constitution and defend it.”
He described the blocking orders as unconstitutional.
“It is clearly violative of India’s Constitution to block an entire news service, particularly without giving them a hearing or without even telling them if their reporting was causing specific security concerns,” Chima said. “The government seems to be trying to shut them down from saying stuff on the internet because we have a broken web censorship system that allows them more power without accountability.”
Tanveer Hasan, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation, agreed. He expressed concern about the chilling effect of these blocks on free speech and the ability of journalists to report critically on the government.
“The biggest media houses, YouTube channels and the ones with the largest Instagram following are speaking for the state,” he said. “Why does the regime want to pick on smaller and almost inconsequential players?”
He added: “The taking away of the space to have any other opinion or any other narrative that does not fit the mainstream under the guise of law – that is most alarming.”
