Restrictive action on multiple Instagram accounts last month, and similar curbs imposed later, indicate a new level of censorship initiated by the Union government. Accounts of students, protesters, journalists, independent content creators, news organisations, activists, and Opposition politicians were targeted during and after the protests in Delhi staged by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) activists. Most of the posts taken down pertained to the CJP-led movement, the crackdown on the protesters, and content critical of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Provisions of the Information Technology Act, such as Section 79(3)(b) and Section 69A, were reportedly invoked for the takedowns. It is ironic that the IT Act, which has free expression in the digital space as one of its core principles, is being used to restrict the very freedom it proposes. Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw should be held accountable for the misuse of the law, restricting the citizens’ right to free speech.
Instagram was an important vehicle that amplified voices mobilised around the CJP. The party’s official page, which drew millions of followers and doubled as a platform for informed political debate, was briefly made unavailable after what Meta called a “legal request”. CJP spokespersons reported a “blanket ban on protest and Modi-related content”. Independent media outlets found original reportage restricted by “an automated system”, citing the IT Rules, with no clear explanation and no room for appeal. Arbitrary action was initiated against other accounts and media outlets. Between March and July, authorities reportedly issued nearly 200,000 blocking orders to Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, most of them against Instagram. This amounted to over 1,275 takedown directions per day, compared to the average of six orders in the previous year. In August, the deadline for removing “unlawful content” was reduced from 36 hours to three.
When authority expresses its power to the detriment of the rights of citizens, it creates a situation of emergency. What the State-driven censorship of social media content reveals is a digital emergency. The government can claim that the measures were targeted at abuse, deepfakes, or incitement. However, the move clearly sought to protect the government and its policies from criticism that was peaking online. When digital platforms face pressure over regulations, they risk becoming political instruments. Their priorities shift – avoiding legal liability becomes more crucial than securing public trust. Technology was also envisioned as a supplement to democratic expression. Its deployment to surveil and suppress that expression is a direct assault on a fundamental, constitutional right. (Source: DH)
