Understanding India’s internet censorship regime

What Happened

A detailed examination of India's internet censorship framework has gained renewed urgency in 2026, following escalating use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to block not just individual posts but entire social media accounts
The government moved from blocking individual URLs to withholding entire accounts on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), marking a significant escalation of censorship scope
A 2026 Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the power to block online content under Section 69A is an exclusive statutory executive function — Magistrates and criminal courts cannot order online content removal
Draft IT Rules 2026 propose extending Section 69A blocking powers directly to multiple ministries (Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, Information and Broadcasting), bypassing the current requirement to route all orders through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
MeitY warned VPN providers and other intermediaries about obligations to prevent access to websites that unlawfully disclose Indians' personal data
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and digital rights organisations have flagged the growing opacity of blocking orders and the absence of meaningful public review

Static Topic Bridges

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — Content Blocking Powers

Section 69A of the IT Act, inserted by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, empowers the Central Government to direct any intermediary to block public access to any information "in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above." The Blocking Rules (IT [Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public] Rules, 2009) operationalise this power.

Blocking orders under Section 69A are issued by MeitY's Designated Officer; a Review Committee (chaired by the Cabinet Secretary) must meet every two months to examine orders
The Blocking Rules require an opportunity of hearing to the originator of the information, except in emergency situations
Non-compliance by intermediaries with a Section 69A blocking order attracts imprisonment up to seven years and fine
The 2022 Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) had struck down Section 66A (criminalising offensive online speech), but Section 69A was upheld subject to procedural safeguards

Connection to this news: The government's shift from blocking individual URLs to withholding entire accounts on X demonstrates how Section 69A is being stretched in scope. The proposed extension of blocking powers to multiple ministries under Draft IT Rules 2026 would fragment oversight and could dilute the existing procedural safeguards under the Blocking Rules.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021) significantly increased compliance obligations for "significant social media intermediaries" (SSMIs) — platforms with more than 50 lakh registered users in India. These rules require SSMIs to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person, and a Grievance Officer in India.

SSMIs must remove flagged content within 36 hours (unlawful content) and acknowledge grievances within 24 hours
SSMIs hosting messaging services must provide traceability of messages — identifying the "first originator" of viral messages — upon court or government order
The IT Rules 2021 were challenged by multiple platforms and journalists in various High Courts, with some provisions stayed pending adjudication
The Draft IT Rules 2026 propose bringing news publishers and digital content creators under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's oversight, expanding the content regulation architecture

Connection to this news: The escalating use of Section 69A alongside the expanding intermediary compliance framework creates a layered censorship architecture. Platforms that fail to comply with blocking orders risk losing their "safe harbour" protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, which shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content.

Fundamental Rights and Internet Freedom

The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to carry on any trade or profession under Article 19(1)(g) extend to the internet. Internet shutdowns or content blocks must therefore be: (i) legally authorised, (ii) necessary and proportionate, and (iii) subject to review.

Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, including the medium of the internet; reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) include sovereignty, integrity, public order, decency, morality, and defamation
The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) judgment is a landmark: Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as unconstitutionally vague and chilling to free speech; Section 69A was upheld but made subject to procedural fairness
India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of expression under Article 19 — online censorship without judicial oversight potentially violates India's international obligations
The opacity of Section 69A blocking orders (kept confidential by law) makes it nearly impossible for aggrieved parties to challenge them before a court

Connection to this news: The 2026 Supreme Court ruling that Magistrates cannot block content under Section 69A reinforces the executive-only nature of this power — but it also highlights the absence of independent judicial prior restraint review. Without a transparent blocking mechanism, the censorship regime risks becoming an instrument of political control rather than national security.

VPN Regulations and Data Localisation

The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) issued mandatory directions in April 2022 requiring all Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers to maintain logs of user data — including names, IP addresses, usage patterns, and purposes — for a minimum of five years, even after users cancel subscriptions. Failure to comply is punishable under Section 70B of the IT Act.

Several major VPN providers (ExpressVPN, Surfshark, NordVPN) exited the Indian market or deleted India-based servers in response to the CERT-In directions, citing user privacy concerns
The CERT-In directions also apply to data centres, cloud service providers, and virtual asset service providers
MeitY's warning to VPN providers about obligations related to unlawful data disclosure adds another regulatory layer atop the CERT-In framework
Critics argue mandatory data retention by VPN providers defeats the core privacy purpose of VPNs and creates surveillance backdoors

Connection to this news: India's evolving censorship and data retention framework — spanning Section 69A blocking, IT Rules 2021 traceability requirements, and CERT-In VPN logging mandates — represents one of the most comprehensive state-managed internet governance regimes among large democracies.

Key Facts & Data

Section 69A of the IT Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), with the court noting it contains procedural safeguards unlike the struck-down Section 66A
India blocked at least 6,775 websites and URLs under Section 69A in 2022-23, per MeitY data
The Blocking Rules, 2009 stipulate that blocking orders and their contents must be kept confidential — parties whose content is blocked are not informed of the reasons in most cases
X (formerly Twitter) has published periodic transparency reports disclosing the volume of Indian government requests; India consistently ranks among the top five countries requesting content removal
The IT Act, 2000 was enacted to facilitate e-commerce and e-governance; its censorship provisions were added through the 2008 amendment following the 2008 Mumbai attacks
Draft IT Rules 2026, if enacted, would bring news publishers under MIB oversight, potentially creating executive oversight of news content online