“Your post is unavailable in India.” This notification has appeared on social media posts and accounts in recent weeks, with journalists, satirists and political commentators reporting restrictions across Instagram, Facebook and X.
The complaints have emerged amid protests against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's resignation.
The Cockroach Janata Party has alleged a large-scale crackdown on critical content, while the government says MeitY is not issuing the takedown requests. The dispute has brought India's content-blocking rules, the Sahyog portal and the accountability of social media platforms under scrutiny.
Why Are Social Media Posts Being Restricted In India?
Complaints about blocked content have surfaced across Instagram, Facebook and X in recent weeks. Users have shared screenshots of platform notifications stating that their posts are unavailable in India or have been restricted following a legal request.
The restrictions have drawn attention because they coincide with demonstrations against the SIR of electoral rolls and protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The demonstrations have taken place in several parts of the country, with the CJP among the groups campaigning against the election-related developments.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged on 28 October that the government was taking down thousands of critical posts and accounts every day. He argued that removing online discussions would not address the issues prompting people to raise questions.
CJP leader Ashutosh Ranka had made a similar allegation two days earlier. In a post on X on 26 October, he claimed that thousands of Instagram accounts had been restricted in India and lakhs of videos had been taken down.
These figures are allegations made by the CJP leaders. The material available does not independently establish the total number of accounts or posts affected, or show that all the restrictions were ordered by the government.
Satirist and lyricist Varun Grover said Instagram removed the musical version of his satirical poem about the government's Viksit Bharat 2047 promise. The notification he shared stated that the content had been restricted under a legal requirement involving India's IT Act.
Legal news platform LiveLaw also reported that Instagram removed a reel explaining the Election Commission's affidavit in the Supreme Court, citing a legal request. The same video remained available on YouTube.
Why Has MeitY Denied Issuing Takedown Orders?
Sources in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) told NDTV on 28 October that the ministry had not asked Meta to remove specific Instagram posts or restrict accounts.
A senior MeitY official reiterated the position to Hindustan Times on 30 October, saying, “We are not sending these takedowns. Ask Meta.”
However, government agencies and police can send requests to platforms through other channels. One such route is the Sahyog portal, operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Union Home Ministry.
The Hindu has also reported a MeitY advisory to Meta and shorter compliance deadlines under amended IT Rules. These developments have added to concerns over how quickly platforms are expected to act on content-related requests.
What Is The Sahyog Portal?
Sahyog relays requests from government agencies and police to online platforms. Its critics have questioned whether the process allows officials to seek content removal without the safeguards required for formal blocking orders.
X, formerly Twitter, challenged the portal before the Karnataka High Court, calling it a “censorship portal”. The company argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not itself grant officials the power to block content.
According to X's court filings, officers from the Home, Defence, Railways and Finance ministries, as well as police in more than 30 States and Union Territories, had been authorised to send notices.
The Centre defended Sahyog as a purely administrative tool that neither mandates removal nor imposes penalties. The Karnataka High Court dismissed X's petition in September 2025, describing the portal as an instrument of public good. X has appealed the decision.
The government also acknowledged that an Indian Railways notice directing X to remove a viral video of a woman driving on railway tracks in Telangana had exceeded the department's statutory powers. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described it as an isolated incident.
What Do Sections 69A And 79 Of The IT Act Say?
The two provisions govern different aspects of online content restrictions.
Section 69A allows the Centre to issue directions blocking public access to online information. The Supreme Court upheld the provision in its 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment, citing safeguards that include recording reasons, giving affected parties an opportunity to be heard and reviewing decisions through a committee.
Section 79(3)(b) concerns the conditions under which online platforms retain safe-harbour protection from liability for user content. It is used alongside Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, for notices relating to allegedly unlawful information.
Critics argue that using this route to seek content removal raises questions about whether the safeguards attached to Section 69A are being bypassed.
What Changed Under The Amended IT Rules?
MeitY amended Rule 3(1)(d) after concerns were raised over who could issue removal intimations.
Under the amended rule, such notices can be issued only by joint secretary-level officers or equivalent officials, director-level officers where no joint secretary post exists, or police officers of Deputy Inspector General rank and above. A secretary-rank officer must review every intimation each month.
On 5 October, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a notice that had led to the blocking of the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network. It found that the notice had been issued by an officer below DIG rank and that the mandatory monthly review had not been demonstrated.
The court also ruled that users must receive a copy of a takedown intimation when it is sent to a platform, allowing them to challenge the restriction.
How Many Takedown Requests Have Been Reported?
Digital rights organisations and media reports have recorded restrictions across different platforms.
SFLC.in's Free Speech Tracker recorded 351 cases of content and account restrictions in the 29 days preceding its 30 October report. Of these, 23 involved legal requests under Section 79(3)(b), while 11 involved requests under Rule 4(4) of the IT Rules. Its RightsLine helpline also received 28 cases of content restrictions over the preceding month.
The Internet Freedom Foundation separately said it had received 67 requests for pro bono assistance from Instagram users facing restrictions in the past month.
Other figures point to a wider volume of requests. Sources cited by The Hindu said Delhi Police issued around 300 takedown requests over three months, with most acted upon by platforms. ABC News, citing The Indian Express, reported that the Centre had ordered close to 195,000 takedowns of posts on Instagram, Facebook and YouTube between March and July 2026.
These figures cover different authorities, periods and types of requests. They do not represent a single verified nationwide count.
Why Are Journalists Also Raising Concerns?
The controversy extends beyond social media posts. Journalists covering the recent demonstrations have reported being detained while attempting to report from protest sites.
The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 43 journalists had been detained across India over two days in October, most of them in Delhi.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation also spoke to journalists who described growing pressure on independent reporting. Its report highlighted concerns over police action at protests, government advertising and corporate ownership of media organisations.
The wider media debate has also involved restrictions faced by foreign broadcasters and proposed privacy rules that news publishers say could affect their ability to report. The Digital News Publishers Association has challenged the proposed provisions in the Supreme Court, arguing that journalists need exemptions to protect press freedom.
What Is The CJP's Wider Role In The Protests?
The CJP began as an Instagram movement and gained millions of followers within days. It was involved in protests over the NEET paper leak, which culminated in Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, and has since become prominent in demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were recently released from Tihar Jail after being detained following a protest at Jantar Mantar.
Separately, Ranka and Das faced a ₹2-crore defamation suit filed by BJP leader Gaurav Bhatia in September. During proceedings before the Delhi High Court, they undertook to remove specific disputed social media posts. This legal dispute is separate from the wider allegations of government-directed takedowns.
The larger question remains how users can identify who requested a restriction, understand the legal grounds and challenge a decision when platforms cite a government or law enforcement request while the ministry denies issuing it.
TL;DR | News At A Glance
Why are social media posts being blocked in India?
Users have reported restrictions on Instagram, Facebook and X amid protests against the SIR process and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
What has the CJP alleged?
Abhijeet Dipke and Ashutosh Ranka have claimed that thousands of Instagram accounts and lakhs of videos have been restricted. These figures have not been independently verified.
Has MeitY ordered the takedowns?
The ministry has denied issuing the requests discussed in recent complaints. A senior official told Hindustan Times that MeitY was not sending the takedowns.
What is the Sahyog portal?
It is operated by the I4C under the Union Home Ministry and relays requests from government agencies and police to online platforms.
What is the difference between Sections 69A and 79?
Section 69A provides for government blocking directions with specific safeguards. Section 79(3)(b) concerns intermediary liability and is used alongside the IT Rules for notices relating to allegedly unlawful content.
What safeguards were added to the IT Rules?
Only specified senior officials can issue removal intimations, and a secretary-rank officer must review every intimation monthly.
How many restrictions have been reported?
SFLC.in recorded 351 cases in 29 days, while the Internet Freedom Foundation received 67 requests for assistance from Instagram users in a month. Other reports cited around 300 Delhi Police requests and close to 195,000 Centre-ordered takedowns over a separate period.
Have journalists also reported restrictions?
Yes. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 43 journalists were detained across India over two days in October, most of them in Delhi.
