Kerala HC directs the government to respond within four weeks to our petition challenging the blocking of Bitchat in India. Bitchat is an open-source messaging app that works over Bluetooth, with no internet needed. It became popular during the internet shutdowns in Delhi in July 2026. Since then, GitHub was ordered to take it down, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ordered the app and its website to be blocked. Neither order has been made public. SFLC.in represented the Appropriate Technology Promotion Society before the Kerala High Court. The petition seeks disclosure of the Section 69A blocking order and asks the Court to quash it as procedurally flawed and disproportionate. Swipe to know more 👉 #internetshutdown #FOSS #opensource #Bitchat @jack @BitchatMe_ @callebtc @FOSSUnited @GitHubPolicy @GithubProjects

We’re seeing a clear pattern. At least 12 posts featuring the same imagery of @RahulGandhi waving the Indian flag during a protest in Delhi have been restricted by @Meta’s opaque automated systems. Why are these posts being targeted? What prompted these restrictions, and who made these decisions? Highlighting these concerns and other instances of content takedowns and account suspensions, SFLC.in is sending a joint representation to social media platforms and @GoI_MeitY. Join our representation by writing to us at [email protected]. Share your experiences with content takedowns or account suspensions to help us document these cases and push for greater transparency and accountability. #freespeech #FoE #censorship #MetaCensorsIndia @INCIndia @nasirsyedINC @IYC @INCMP @ShashiTharoor @gurdeepsappal @PKakkar_ @DeependerSHooda @OversightBoard @finkd @milner_simon @joel_kaplan

SFLC.in has documented at least 50 journalists who were detained on October 10 and 11. You can access the list of names here: docs.google.com/document/d/1… We condemn these attacks on press freedom and the prevention of journalists from carrying out their duties. We are working to make this list as exhaustive as possible, with more specific details about each detention, to hold the authorities accountable for their actions.

We have recorded 50 instances of journalists being detained while reporting on the protests. Despite the Supreme Court order that "Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in the discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever," the Delhi Police has continued to detain journalists reporting from the ground. SFLC.in condemns this act of contempt of court and attack on press freedom. Journalists must be able to report on the ground without fear of detention or intimidation. Access SFLC.in's record of journalists detained while doing their job here: docs.google.com/document/d/1… This list is non-exhaustive, and we’re working to add more information about these cases. Help us document more of these instances. If you or a colleague were detained while reporting, tag SFLC.in or DM us. Every report matters in holding authorities accountable. #pressfreedom #freespeech #FoE #censorship @SreenivasanJain @AbhinandanSekhr @SushantSin @vijaita @suhasinih @RanaAyyub @SauravDassss @nilanjanaroy @prapthi_m @Kabiran_ @kafkasbluebug @iPriyanka_S @amnesty @abhijeet_dipke @riotsjain @AshutoshRanka @ravish_journo @RSF_inter @MnshaP @dhanyarajendran @seemay @TanushreePande @KhabarLahariya @PeekTV_in @betwasharma @ravish_journo @AshwineSingh @SavyasachiAstha @Article14live @tajmahalfoxtrot @seemay @jahnavi_sen

Peaceful protest is a right, not a crime. SFLC.in's Digital Defenders Network of 75+ lawyers is available to defend your rights. If you require any legal assistance, reach out to SFLC.in's RightsLine at [email protected]. Our legal team will get in touch with you to explore how we can assist. Know your rights. We’ve got you covered! #freespeech #FoE #censorship #contenttakedown #JantarMantar #GyaneshKumar #SIR #ECI #Votechori #dissent @AbhinandanSekhr @MnshaP @tajmahalfoxtrot @seemay @svaradarajan @jahnavi_sen @antarabaruah__ @SobhanaNair @dheerajmishra04 @hemantrajora_ @ShoaibDaniyal @sighyush @SravastiDasgup2 @Tamal0401 @nistula @RSF_inter @riotsjain @amnesty @theGNI @APC_News @IndEditorsGuild @DigipubIndia @PCITweets @ravish_journo @kafkasbluebug @newslaundry @jahnavi_sen

Airtel users in East Delhi have received messages from the service provider regarding the temporary suspension of internet services in the area. No such order for the temporary suspension of services in the region has been made public yet. If anyone in other parts of Delhi has received similar communication from their service provider, DM us or write to us at [email protected]. Help us document these instances of internet shutdowns. #internetshutdown #LetTheNetWork #KeeItOn #JantarMantar #GyaneshKumar #SIR #ECI #Votechori #dissent @AbhinandanSekhr @SushantSin @vijaita @suhasinih @RanaAyyub @SauravDassss @whattalawyer @nilanjanaroy @prapthi_m @Kabiran_ @kafkasbluebug @iPriyanka_S @amnesty @unwomenasia @abhijeet_dipke @AshutoshRanka @ravish_journo @RSF_inter @MnshaP @dhanyarajendran @seemay @TanushreePande @MnshaP @KhabarLahariya @PeekTV_in @betwasharma @newslaundry @ravish_journo @AshwineSingh @SavyasachiAstha @Article14live @airtelindia @AroonDeep @Aditi_muses @tajmahalfoxtrot @seemay @jahnavi_sen @journomayank

According to reports, phones of protesters are being seized by the Delhi Police. In situations like these, knowing your rights can help you stay informed and protect yourself. With internet shutdowns being imposed in parts of Central Delhi, carry physical copies of these guides and share them with others around you. You never know who might need them. If you need immediate help understanding your rights and how you can protect your device, you can reach out to us at [email protected]. Download a copy here: sflc.in/essential-resources-… @TanushreePande @MnshaP @KhabarLahariya @PeekTV_in @betwasharma @newslaundry @ravish_journo @AshwineSingh @SavyasachiAstha @Article14live @reporters_co

SFLC.in’s Statement on the Internet Shutdown Imposed in New Delhi In the wake of various instances involving exclusion of eligible voters from electoral rolls, the Cockroach Janta Party (“CJP”) has organized a peaceful protest to oppose the Special Intensive Revision (“SIR”) exercise and demand the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner. (1/11)

Your post gets taken down. You appeal. Then you wait, sometimes for four months or more. ⏳ As of 22 September, India's Grievance Appellate Committee had received 63,353 appeals, with nearly 50,000 still pending. @thewire_in and @medianama covered these findings from SFLC.in's event, 'Beyond the Report Button: Rethinking Digital Rights and Remedies', on what redressal really looks like in the era of takedowns. 🔗 Read the full stories here: m.thewire.in/article/tech/be… medianama.com/2026/09/223-cr… #censorship #freespeech #FoE

SFLC.in condemns the blocking of Bitchat in India. According to @Apple's App Review notice, Bitchat has been blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act read with the Blocking Rules 2009. @jack’s post on @X suggests that the developers were neither heard nor served with a blocking order before the application was blocked. He learned of the block only through Apple’s notice, which is all he was able to share. SFLC.in strongly urges the government to withdraw its orders directing Apple, @Google and internet service providers to block the Bitchat application, as such orders are unconstitutional and violate citizens’ rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Read more about SFLC.in's statement on the blocking of Bitchat in India here: maktoobmedia.com/post?id=116… @MaktoobMedia @BitchatMe_ @callebtc @FOSSUnited @GitHubPolicy @GithubProjects @OversightBoard @FO_Coalition @abhijeet_dipke @SauravDassss @AshutoshRanka

SFLC.in Condemns the Blocking of Bitchat in India On 3 October 2026, @jack shared on @X a notice from @Apple App Review, which stated that Bitchat had been removed from the India App Store pursuant to a blocking order issued by @GoI_MeitY under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). The notice further showed that Apple understood the order to mean that Bitchat ‘includes content that is illegal in India’, and on this basis cited a violation of Guideline 5 of its App Review Guidelines. At present, the application is also reported to be unavailable on the @GooglePlay, and its official website is inaccessible on several Internet Service Providers. What is Bitchat, and why does it matter? Bitchat is a decentralised, peer-to-peer messaging app that works over Bluetooth mesh, with no internet or cellular connection, and no central server. Furthermore, it requires no mandatory user registration, and keeps messages secured with end-to-end encryption. Beyond privacy, its value is resilience, as it helps people communicate through the internet shutdowns that the government imposes during citizen protests. Bitchat’s popularity in India surged during the repeated, unconstitutional internet shutdowns imposed by the government around Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, at the time of the NEET UG protests in July 2026. Blocked through an Unconstitutional Procedure According to Apple’s App Review notice, Bitchat has been blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“Blocking Rules 2009”). Jack Dorsey’s post on X suggests that the developers were neither heard nor served with a blocking order before the application was blocked. He learned of the block only through Apple’s notice, which is all he was able to share. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (paras 114 and 115), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the blocking procedure under Section 69A read with the Blocking Rules 2009, by heavily relying on the procedural safeguards built into this power, including, (1) recording of reasons in writing in the blocking order, which would be amenable to challenge in a writ petition, and (2) opportunity of hearing to the originator of the information before the order is passed under Rule 8. However, in consistent practice, the procedure under the Blocking Rules 2009 is applied in a manner that defeats these safeguards, rendering the blocking process under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules unconstitutional, as follows: - By relying on the expression ‘person or intermediary’ in Rule 8, notice is invariably served only upon the intermediary and never upon the originator, even under normal circumstances. This practice egregiously deprives the originator of a fair opportunity to present their case against the request or complaint for blocking their information, thereby constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem. This ultimately culminates in a situation where the originator’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is curtailed without following a due and fair procedure in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. - Furthermore, Rule 16 imposes an overarching requirement of confidentiality regarding requests and complaints for blocking information, as well as the actions taken thereon, including the final blocking order restricting public access to the information. This confidentiality provision enables the government agency to withhold, and simultaneously impedes the intermediary from providing, all relevant details to the affected person/originator of the information in a transparent manner. - When combined with the practice followed under Rule 8, Rule 16 prevents the affected person from furnishing clarifications or a response to the blocking request, thereby depriving them of a fair opportunity to present their case. Furthermore, the affected person or originator is also deprived of a reasoned order blocking their information. This constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the above culminates in a situation where information is blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act, restricting the originator’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, through a procedure that is manifestly arbitrary and devoid of procedural fairness. The blocking of Bitchat is not an isolated instance. Over time, India has witnessed an increasing trend of opaque information blocking under Section 69A of the IT Act read with the Blocking Rules 2009, without any intimation to the affected person or originator, let alone furnishing them with the blocking order. These concerns were recently brought into sharp focus once again when @Cockroachisback's X account was blocked without any transparency in May 2026. Alarmed by this pattern and concerned about the violation of citizens’ digital and constitutional rights, SFLC.in filed a Public Interest Litigation in February 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, challenging, inter alia, the legality of Rules 8 and 16 of the Blocking Rules 2009, as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The case is titled ‘Software Freedom Law Center, India and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.’, bearing W.P.(C) No. 161/2025, and is presently pending for further adjudication before the Supreme Court. In the said Petition, SFLC.in has sought that Rule 16 ought to be struck down as unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it has prayed that Rule 8 either be struck down as unconstitutional or be read down to interpret “or” as “and”, thereby mandatorily requiring the issuance of notice to the originator of information, ensuring conformity with the Constitution. The illegal blocking of Bitchat As of now, no blocking order is publicly available, and without it the specific grounds relied upon cannot be assailed. In any event, using Section 69A of the IT Act to block an entire application that enables communication is highly disproportionate. Furthermore, the block immediately followed the internet shutdown imposed by the government on 2 October 2026 during a protest at Jantar Mantar. This timing gives rise to a strong inference that the application may have been targeted because it enables communication during internet shutdowns and protests. Enabling communication among protesters cannot, in any circumstance, be a valid ground for blocking an application under Article 19(2) or Section 69A. Moreover, when the Delhi High Court upheld such exercise of power under Section 69A in ‘Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.’, 2026:DHC:5145, SFLC.in noted that the judgment set a dangerous precedent. Interpreting “information” in Section 69A so expansively as to permit the blocking of an entire application can have far-reaching adverse consequences, particularly by allowing communication channels to be disabled during protests. Without prejudice to SFLC.in’s position that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, the Delhi High Court itself heavily relied on the temporary nature of the ban in reaching its conclusion. Here, the ban appears to be indefinite, which makes it all the more disproportionate and unconstitutional. SFLC.in strongly urges the government to withdraw its orders directing Apple, Google and internet service providers to block the Bitchat application, as such orders are unconstitutional and violate citizens’ rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. SFLC.in also calls upon Apple to firmly stand by the fundamental rights of its users in India. Apple should not give effect to the order mechanically, and should diligently take all appropriate steps, including legal remedies, to ensure that it does not become complicit in the violation of its users' fundamental rights. @BitchatMe_ @callebtc @FOSSUnited @GitHubPolicy @GithubProjects @OversightBoard @FO_Coalition @abhijeet_dipke @SauravDassss @AshutoshRanka #FOSS #internetshutdown

Statement on restrictions faced by cartoonists Satish Acharya and Manjul on Instagram SFLC.in strongly condemns the restrictions faced by cartoonists @satishacharya and @MANJULtoons on Instagram. On 26th September, Manjul’s cartoon on the Election Commission was restricted in India “pursuant to a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement.” Satish Acharya also repeatedly faced takedowns of his posts on Instagram, and on 28th September, his account got restricted in India. The notification shared by the cartoonist stated that the platform had to “repeatedly restrict access to content posted” by him “pursuant to legal requirements.” In March 2026, Satish also received two notifications from @X stating that @GoI_MeitY had ordered the platform to block his content. He also received a notification from X about a content takedown request from the Cyber Crime Department of the Mumbai Police. These cartoons depicted India’s stance on US-Israel bombing on Iran and the killing of its supreme leader. Another cartoon showed the arms of state actors forming a human chain around billionaire Gautam Adani with the caption “Ek hain to safe hain.” These notifications also stated that the platform could not provide him with additional information due to legal restrictions. This lack of transparency makes it particularly difficult to challenge a blocking order. While notifications issued by X identified the authorities that ordered the takedowns, Instagram did not disclose which authorities had ordered the takedowns. In such instances, before a creator can even consider approaching a court, they may first have to determine which government authority issued the order, under what legal provision it was issued, and what specific content or reasoning formed the basis for it. Without access to this information, exercising the right to challenge the restriction becomes significantly harder. Even when the information is available, going to court requires time, money, and legal assistance. All of these resources may not even be available for cartoonists, independent creators, or students. For someone facing multiple takedown orders, challenging each restriction individually can become an exhausting and expensive exercise. @scroll_in’s article on the restrictions faced by Satish Acharya stated that the cartoonist attempted to challenge Meta’s action but was unable to reach Instagram’s help centre due to its automated grievance redressal systems and the lack of access to human support. Meta’s AI Support Assistant provides ‘In-App Appeal’ as the ‘primary method for challenging a content decision.’ However, this method is not a statutory remedy, amenable to further challenge at the Grievance Appellate Committee level. The prescribed procedure of approaching the Grievance Officer through Meta’s official reporting form does not provide a method to report the takedown of content, either for violations of Meta Community Standards, Terms of Service, or takedowns through “automated systems implemented under legal requirements.” SFLC.in has also observed that the Grievance Officer email address available on the website can only be used to enquire about the grievance redressal mechanism and not to file a Grievance Officer report. This also creates a structural barrier to access further remedies, such as approaching the Grievance Appellate Committee, which mandatorily requires a Grievance Officer report to be filed prior to filing an appeal. In the past few months, SFLC.in has recorded similar instances of restrictions faced by other cartoonists in India. In August 2026, @cartoonistrrs's posts showing a comical representation of the PM’s viral reel received a takedown notice, and @cartoonistvish faced 4 takedown orders for his cartoon criticising Prime Minister Narender Modi’s foreign travels during domestic issues. Even a simple satire by @BagchiAsh, showing the PM with a Melody chocolate on his forehead, was restricted on Meta. Over time, such instances of censorship can have consequences far beyond individual takedowns. When creators repeatedly see their work removed without clear explanations and realise that the only meaningful way to challenge the decision may be through costly legal proceedings, they may begin to censor themselves. The uncertainty surrounding what can be taken down and the difficulty of fighting back when takedowns happen can eventually discourage people from creating altogether. If the cost of speaking becomes too high and the consequences too unpredictable, creators may censor themselves or give up on their art entirely. The increasing trend of censorship of cartoons and political humour is deeply concerning, particularly because it points to a shrinking space for dissent in India. The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, and the ability to question, criticise and even ridicule those in power is an essential part of a democratic society. Dissent may be uncomfortable for governments, but discomfort cannot be the basis for silencing it. SFLC.in calls upon @Meta to remove restrictions on Satish Acharya’s posts and account and Manjul’s Instagram posts with immediate effect. SFLC.in further calls upon the Government to provide greater transparency about the legal and policy basis for content restrictions on cartoons and satirical content. The Government should also ensure that the users are provided with meaningful, accessible, and timely avenues for content takedowns and account restrictions. #freespeech #FoE #censorship #MetaCensorsIndia #contentmoderation @sanitarypanels @abhijeet_dipke @FO_Coalition @OversightBoard @finkd @milner_simon @joel_kaplan @zoo_bear @tajmahalfoxtrot @svaradarajan @IFEX @APC_News @IndexCensorship @dhanyarajendran