India's Digital Censorship Infrastructure Expands, Eroding Online Free Speech
Over the past month, numerous internet users across India have reported receiving notifications from platforms like X and Instagram, indicating that their posts or entire accounts have been censored and blocked. In more severe cases, Facebook pages with millions of followers have been abruptly banned without clear explanations. This trend is not limited to individual users; even service providers like Supabase, a tool used by developers for building applications, found themselves blocked in India without prior notice. The service was only reinstated after developers raised complaints and Supabase tagged the IT minister on X, drawing public attention to the issue.
The Foundation: Shreya Singhal Verdict and Its Erosion
In March 2015, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which remains the cornerstone of online speech protections in the country. The court struck down the overly broad section 66A of the IT Act, which had been misused to imprison individuals for their Facebook posts. Equally significant, the judgment strengthened the safe harbour provision under section 79, shielding platforms from liability for user-generated content. The court also upheld blocking powers under section 69A, mandating structural safeguards such as written reasons, orders issued by joint secretary-level officers, and review by a committee. Crucially, it required that affected users be informed and given a hearing if identifiable.
Dismantling Protections: The Rise of Censorship Mechanisms
In the eleven years since this judgment, these protections have been systematically dismantled, leading to the emergence of a robust digital censorship infrastructure. The following key developments illustrate this shift:
- Amendments to IT Rules in 2021: These changes expanded the scope of section 79 to include digital news outlets, despite high court orders staying these provisions. The government circumvented judicial interventions through notifications and administrative practices, effectively bypassing legal oversight.
- Sahyog Portal Operations: The home ministry's Sahyog portal, operating without parliamentary sanction, serves as a hotline for government agencies to issue takedown orders under Section 79. With 33 states, seven central agencies, and 72 companies onboarded, users receive no notice or access to orders. X Corp reported receiving 29,118 such requests in the first half of 2025, averaging 160 daily, overwhelming platforms' ability to assess legality and leading to default censorship.
- Compressed Compliance Windows: Amendments to IT Rules in February 2026 reduced the compliance window for blocking orders from 36 to three hours, the shortest globally, with reports suggesting a further reduction to one hour. This applies broadly without exemptions for satire, journalism, or political criticism, blurring distinctions between emergency and contestable orders while keeping proceedings secret.
- Widening Architecture: More government agencies now wield blocking powers under section 69A. Proposed amendments to rule 8(1) would extend oversight from registered publishers to all users posting news content, including ordinary citizens sharing videos of issues like potholed roads, mirroring the withdrawn draft Broadcasting Bill of 2024.
- Data Demands and Self-Censorship: Sections 70B, 69, and 75 are being used by authorities to demand extensive user data from social media platforms without adequate legal grounds, fostering self-censorship of legitimate speech.
- Accelerating Regulatory Changes: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act delegates significant rule-making powers to the executive, with IT Rules amended annually since 2021. Courts struggle to keep pace, as seen when the Bombay High Court struck down the government's Fact Check Unit in 2024, only for new provisions to emerge rapidly.
Consequences and Accountability Gaps
The outcome is a decentralized system of censorship powers with centralized delivery through portals like Sahyog. Scale has increased dramatically, and timelines have been crunched, severely limiting legal review. Platforms, eager to maintain market access in India, often comply with orders, while citizens face speech restrictions without notice, hearing, or reasons. Neither the government nor platforms can be held accountable effectively, as the legal system lags behind regulatory agility. It is imperative to sound the alarm to prevent this censorship infrastructure from becoming a permanent fixture, threatening the foundational principles of free expression established by the Supreme Court.
This analysis highlights the urgent need for vigilance and reform to protect digital rights in India.
