A Blank Placard, A Press Conference: Over 200 Protests Posts Censored On Social Media

Shabana Khan, an independent journalist, launched her Instagram news page Desibebaak in July and quickly gained 40,000 followers with videos covering the July protests at Jantar Mantar and the collapse of a hostel building in Satya Niketan.

Then, she went to cover the 'Jantar Mantar 2.0' protests which demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Over those four days, eight of Khan's videos were made unavailable in India.

Four of them were footage of Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's October 12 press conference. The others showed vox pops with protesters and students being detained. The takedown of those videos, Instagram said, was through an "automated system" under India's Information Technology Rules.

Khan told Decode that the climate around online news had already taught her to tread carefully; censorship and takedown are not uncommon.

“I addressed the Prime Minister as 'Pyaare PM Modi' in every video, and had stopped adding captions or descriptions entirely,” she said. That salutation for the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, she thought, would protect her from takedowns on social media.

"Despite taking all these precautions, my videos have been removed without any reason that I am aware of," Khan told Decode. "If I am attending a press conference of the LoP, what else do you expect me to post if not what the person on stage is saying?"

Khan's experience was not isolated. As anti-CEC protests unfolded across Delhi, journalists, protesters, news organisations and meme pages documenting police action found their content caught in an increasingly swift and opaque takedown process.

Over 200 Takedowns In 2 Weeks

Digital rights organisation Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), in its report Silencing Digital Dissent, documented more than 200 takedowns across eight categories over two weeks.

The restrictions came across Instagram, Facebook, Threads and X. Besides individual posts being removed, accounts were withheld or temporarily suspended, and users faced limits on livestreaming, commenting and reposting.

The range of content targeted was wide. Users faced restrictions for resharing Rahul Gandhi's "Chalo Delhi" call. LiveLaw Hindi had posts restricted, including one about CJI Surya Kant rejecting Gandhi's request for a meeting on electoral roll revisions. Posts about Jantar Mantar and UN remarks on the protests were also affected.

Videos documenting alleged police violence were hit particularly hard. A Mathrubhumi English video on alleged police violence, which had crossed 11 million views, was restricted in India.

Delhi University student Saavy's video alleging that police tore women protesters' clothes during detentions was taken down. LiveLaw Hindi faced restrictions on a video featuring a female lawyer alleging verbal abuse by police.

Journalist Shyam Meera Singh's X account was withheld in India. Independent journalists Rosy, Gajendra Singh, Kashish and Shubangi reported restrictions. Molitics' Instagram account was taken down.

 Molitics' Instagram page temporarily disabled (AI-enhanced representation)

Cartoonists Satish Acharya and Manjul faced restrictions on cartoons criticising the Election Commission, while Acharya's account was temporarily restricted. Meme page @facing780 reportedly received over 30 takedown orders before its account was restricted.

According to SFLC, some posts were taken down only after gaining traction, and independent journalists faced temporary account restrictions timed precisely to the protests. "The timing of the temporary restriction fell exactly during the protests. It looked like a deliberate effort to restrict their content when it would receive peak traction," the organisation told Decode.

The restrictions came amid heightened scrutiny of online content by the government. On October 8, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory asking platforms to exercise "enhanced diligence" against allegedly false, misleading, manipulated or out-of-context content that could affect public order. It also asked platforms to prioritise complaints from authorised government agencies.

The System Behind The Takedowns

For users whose posts were removed, the problem often began with not knowing why. Many Meta notices cited automated systems under the Information Technology Rules, 2021, without specifying the provision invoked or whether the action followed a government request.

The legal provision used to remove content matters because India has two distinct mechanisms for restricting online information.

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides for a formal blocking process: a review committee, an opportunity for the platform to respond, and approval by a designated authority, subject to prescribed procedures and safeguards. Section 79(3)(b), by contrast, concerns the conditions under which an intermediary may lose its safe harbour protection for failing to remove content after receiving notice. Government authorities and police have used this provision to seek content removal through a more decentralised process, one that does not require the same procedural safeguards.

Former senior MeitY official Rakesh Maheshwari, who was involved in developing India’s IT policy framework, explained the distinction in an earlier conversation with Decode.

The government's Sahyog portal has further expedited this process. Launched in October 2024, it allows authorised agencies and police to send takedown notices to platforms through a single channel. In its first year, the portal was used to send more than 2,300 blocking orders to 19 online platforms, according to RTI data.

In August, The Indian Express reported that Meta had integrated its application programming interface (API) with the government’s Sahyog portal, allowing government takedown requests to be processed automatically without a separate human review by the company. The window for platforms to act on certain government takedown orders has already shrunk from 36 hours to three.

What Happens When You Try To Challenge A Takedown

As documented by the Internet Freedom Foundation, journalist Ila Kazmi's case shows how difficult contesting a takedown can become.

Kazmi, whose Instagram reels documented a Delhi Police facial recognition van at Jantar Mantar, had one reel withheld in India in July 2026. By September, her entire account had become inaccessible.

Instagram cited a government or law enforcement notice under Section 79(3)(b) but did not identify the authority that issued it or explain the grounds for the restriction.

Kazmi wrote to Meta's grievance officer and several government offices, including MeitY, seeking the order and reasons for the block. MeitY confirmed the restriction but directed her to an unnamed state department. Meta's grievance form had no category for challenging a government-ordered restriction. The closest available option required complainants to declare a "good-faith belief that the content you are reporting is unlawful". Since Kazmi was seeking to challenge the restriction on her own journalism, she could not make that declaration — and did not submit the form.

With no substantive response from either side, Kazmi approached the Delhi High Court. On October 9, the court directed the government and Meta to produce the takedown orders. The next hearing is scheduled for November.

Swati, who runs the Instagram news page Storylives.in with 270,000 followers, ran into a different version of the same wall. A video she had posted in July — showing a protester at Jantar Mantar holding a blank placard (asked why it was blank, the protester replied that it listed the achievements of the Prime Minister) — was taken down on October 17, three months after it was posted. It had crossed a million views. Instagram removed it through its automated system.

Swati received no clear explanation of why it was taken down or how she could challenge the decision.

When The Record Disappears

For users, the consequences extend beyond losing access to a post. Social media has become a way to organise, share updates and document police action. When posts documenting protests become unavailable, that record of events becomes harder to access and circulate.

On October 10, Saavy, president of the All India Students' Association (AISA) at Delhi University, posted a 50-second Instagram reel from a police detention bus near AIIMS. In the video, she alleged that Delhi Police personnel were tearing women protesters' clothes.

The next day, the reel became unavailable in India following a takedown notice invoking Section 79(3)(b). Saavy later reposted the video as a regular post rather than a reel, alongside the takedown notice. The new post remains available.

"With risks of WhatsApp and mobile calls being surveyed, social media becomes the only way for us to mobilise and document and now the government is targeting that as well," Saavy told Decode. "There's also no way to challenge it."

For over two years, SFLC’s Free Speech Tracker has documented similar takedowns of factual information, art and memes, often leaving users without adequate explanations or an effective route to appeal.

According to the digital rights organisation, such practices run contrary to the principles of natural justice and threaten the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"When such practices are left unchecked, it risks normalising a system in which online speech is governed not by clear legal standards and due process, but by the unaccountable discretion of government authorities and private platforms," they said.

For independent journalists like Shabana Khan, the uncertainty has begun to shape how they report. She is weighing the risks of continuing to post against the possibility of losing the page she has worked hard to build. Rather than risk getting caught in a lengthy legal battle to challenge the takedowns, she would rather be more cautious about what she posts.

"I would rather do this than get caught in a legal mess with a dead end," she said, as long as "the government lets the page be".