The Indian government has ordered platforms like X and Meta to block posts and restrict accounts of Mohammed Zubair, Molitics, National Dastak, Rajeev Nigam and other, citing IT Act provisions. Many of the targeted posts fact-check BJP leaders or criticise government policies and politicians. Digital rights groups warn this opaque, expanding censorship regime threatens free speech and online political satire in India.
A series of government-directed content restrictions targeting prominent fact-checkers, satirists, journalists and independent media platforms has intensified concerns over censorship and online speech, as the Centre proposes to further expand its powers to block digital content.
On 29 March 2026, fact-checker and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair said several of his posts on X were blocked in India after the platform received a government order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The development came alongside restrictions imposed by Meta on Facebook pages of independent media platforms Molitics, National Dastak, and satirist Rajeev Nigam.
The actions come amid broader moves by the government to widen content-blocking authority under proposed amendments to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which could extend oversight to users who share news and current affairs content online. A separate proposal has suggested decentralizing content blocking capabilities and empowering ministries, police agencies and regulators to issue takedowns orders themselves.
“Got an email from X saying that they received a blocking order from the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology citing Section 69A… regarding my X account,” Zubair wrote on X.
The posts flagged by authorities reportedly included videos showing alleged violence during Ram Navami processions. The posts in question flagged claims and statements made by BJP leaders. Zubair questioned the move, asking if posts exposing “fake propaganda and false narratives” were no longer allowed.
X informed him that it was “legally required” to restrict access to the content within India, while the posts would remain visible outside the country. The platform said it could not share further details due to legal restrictions and suggested the order could be challenged in court or through the ministry.
The posts related to communal violence reported in Murshidabad district in West Bengal, where incidents of stone-pelting, vandalism and arson occurred during Ram Navami processions. Following the incident, 30 people were arrested and Section 144 was imposed in the affected areas.
Around the same time, Meta restricted access in India to Facebook pages of Molitics, National Dastak and satirist Rajeev Nigam. Users attempting to access these pages saw a message stating that the content was unavailable in India due to a legal request.
Molitics editor Neeraj Jha said the restriction was imposed without explanation. He stated that the page, which focuses on public-interest journalism and scientific awareness, had been restricted despite no specific reason being provided.
National Dastak, which reports on issues concerning Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs, farmers and minorities, also received a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. The platform has more than 14 lakh followers on Facebook.
Satirist Rajeev Nigam, who has over 6.6 lakh followers on Facebook, said he did not know which post triggered the restriction. He said he had earlier posted an AI-generated humorous video about a “missing cylinder,” which he later deleted after receiving a notification that it would not be shown in India.
Nigam said that earlier restrictions on his page were temporary and issued by the platform, but this was the first time he had received a notice citing a government directive.
The recent restrictions follow a wave of account blocks on 18 March 2026, when several satirical and parody accounts were withheld in India following government orders. The affected handles included satirists and commentators @Nehr_who, @DrNimoYadav, @DuckKiBaat, @indian_armada as well as accounts of journalists and activists such as @ActivistSandeep and @Doc_RGM.
Users attempting to access these accounts saw the message “Account withheld in India in response to a legal demand.”
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) expressed concern over the takedowns, noting that many affected accounts posted satire, political commentary and criticism of government policies. The organisation said users often received generic notifications without clear reasons.
The crackdown also included a viral parody video by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani, which mocked Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interactions with foreign leaders. The video, which had gained 16 million views, was withheld in India following a legal demand.
Earlier in March 2026, cartoonist Satish Acharya said two of his cartoons were blocked in India following government directives. The cartoons criticised diplomatic developments involving India and West Asia.
Other users reported similar restrictions. Posts by individuals criticising government policies, sharing satirical commentary, or mocking political developments were withheld in India following orders under Section 69A. These cases included posts by academics, activists and ordinary users, with some reporting that even follow-up posts discussing earlier censorship were also blocked.
Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to block online content in the interest of sovereignty, public order, national security or friendly relations with foreign states. Blocking orders are typically confidential, and affected users often receive limited information.
Separately, Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act also allows various Ministries to submit takedown requests to platforms directly, mainly through the Sahyog portal.
Digital rights advocates have raised concerns that satire and criticism are being treated as threats to public order. Legal experts have said restrictions under Section 69A require a clear connection between content and potential harm, rather than discomfort or criticism.
The IFF said that the confidentiality of blocking orders makes it difficult for users to challenge decisions. The organisation also noted that users are often not given prior notice or an opportunity to respond.
Government data indicates a significant rise in content removal actions. The Ministry of Home Affairs reported that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre issued an average of 290 takedown notices per day after being empowered in March 2024.
According to the ministry’s annual report for 2024-25, 1,11,185 pieces of online content were blocked under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act by March 31, 2025.
Under the IT Rules, 2021, social media platforms are required to remove content within hours of receiving such notices or risk losing legal protections.
The recent restrictions come as the government proposes amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, that would expand its authority over online content.
The draft rules would extend oversight mechanisms to include not only intermediaries but also users who share news and current affairs content online. The proposed changes would apply blocking provisions under Rules 14, 15 and 16 to user-generated content.
The amendments also propose mandatory data retention and compliance with government advisories and guidelines. Platforms failing to comply risk losing safe harbour protection under Section 79.
Digital rights groups have criticised the proposal. The IFF described the amendments as a “dangerous expansion of executive power over online speech” and warned of increased surveillance risks.
The draft rules are open for public consultation until 14 April 2026.
In a separate proposal, as reported by The Indian Express, the IT Ministry seeks to extend content blocking powers to other Ministries, including those for Home Affairs, External Affairs, Defence, and Information and Broadcasting, as well as regulators like SEBI and even police agencies.
This will allow them to directly block content perceived to be prejudicial to “sovereignty, security, public order or preventing incitement to offences” under Section 69 (A) of the IT Act, without having to submit a request to the IT Ministry, as is currently required.
Some affected platforms have begun legal action. 4PM News has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the blocking of its YouTube channel and Facebook page, arguing that the action violated principles of natural justice.
Separately, the blocking of satirical account Dr Nimo Yadav has also reached the Delhi High Court. Submissions made before the court stated that the account was blocked after it was found to be “spreading false narratives” and portraying the Prime Minister “in bad taste,” which authorities said could affect public order.
The petitioner argued that blocking the account disrupted professional engagements and income.
Digital rights organisations and affected creators say the recent takedowns, combined with proposed rule changes, could reshape the regulation of online content in India.
The IFF has called for greater transparency, publication of blocking orders, and meaningful notice to affected users. It also urged the government to halt further decentralisation of blocking powers.
The developments have intensified debate over free speech, satire and criticism in the digital space, as restrictions continue to expand alongside proposals to widen government oversight of online content.
[DS]
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store