Internet censorship in India is done by both central and state governments. Domain Name System (DNS) filtering and educating service users in suggested usages is an active strategy and government policy to regulate and block Indian access to Internet content on a large scale. Measures for removing content at the request of content creators through court orders have also become more common in recent years.

Overview

OpenNet Initiative report

The OpenNet Initiative (ONI) classified India as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the political, conflict/security, social, and Internet tools areas in 2011,[1][2] describing India as:

A stable democracy with a strong tradition of press freedom, that nevertheless continues its regime of Internet filtering. However, India's selective censorship of blogs and other content, often under the guise of security, has also been met with significant opposition. Indian ISPs continue to selectively filter Web sites identified by authorities. However, government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective because blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block.

Reporters Without Borders' "countries under surveillance"

In March 2012, Reporters Without Borders added India to its list of "countries under surveillance",[3] stating that:

Since the Mumbai bombings of 2008, the Indian authorities have stepped up Internet surveillance and pressure on technical service providers, while publicly rejecting accusations of censorship. The national security policy of the world's biggest democracy is undermining freedom of expression and the protection of Internet user's personal data.

Freedom House report

Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2024 report gives India a status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 50 (on a 0–100 scale, where higher is better), having increased from 41 in 2017. Its Obstacles to Access rating was 14 (0-25 scale); Limits on Content, 19 (0-35 scale); and Violations of User Rights, 17 (0-40 scale).[4] Out of 70 countries rated in the report, India was ranked thirty-seventh.[5]

Note that prior to 2019, Freedom House utilized a reversed scoring methodology (where a lower score indicated greater freedom). The Freedom on the Net 2017 report gave India the same status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 41 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access rating was 12 (0–25 scale); Limits on Content, 9 (0–35 scale); and Violations of User Rights, 20 (0–40 scale).[6] Out of the 65 countries included in the report, India was ranked twenty-sixth.[7]

The Freedom on the Net 2012 report stated that:[8]

  • India's overall Internet Freedom Status was "Partly Free", unchanged from 2009.
  • India had a score of 39 on a scale from 0 (most free) to 100 (least free), placing twentieth out of the 47 countries worldwide included in the 2012 report.
  • India ranked fourteenth out of 37 countries worldwide in the 2011 report.
  • India ranked third out of the 11 countries in Asia included in the 2012 report.
  • Prior to 2008, censorship of Internet content by the Indian government was relatively rare and sporadic.
  • Following the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai that killed 171 people, the Indian Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) expanding the government's censorship and monitoring capabilities.
  • Although there was no sustained government policy or strategy to block access to Internet content on a large scale, measures for removing certain content from the web, sometimes for fear they could incite violence, had become more common.
  • Pressure on private companies to remove information perceived to endanger public order or national security had increased since late 2009 with the implementation of the amended ITA. Companies were required to have designated employees to receive government blocking requests, and assigned up to seven years' imprisonment to private service providers—including ISPs, search engines, and cyber cafés—that did not comply with the government's blocking requests.
  • Internet users had sporadically faced prosecution for online postings, and private companies hosting the content were obliged by law to hand over user information to the authorities.
  • In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that bloggers and moderators could face libel suits and even criminal prosecution for comments posted on their websites.
  • Prior judicial approval for communications interception was not required, and both central and state governments had the power to issue directives on interception, monitoring, and decryption. All licensed ISPs were obliged by law to sign an agreement allowing Indian government authorities to access user data.

Background

In June 2000, the Indian Parliament enacted the Information Technology (IT) Act to establish a legal framework for regulating Internet use and commerce, including digital signatures, security, and hacking.[1] The Act criminalised the publishing of obscene information electronically and granted police powers to search any premises without a warrant and arrest individuals in violation. A 2008 amendment to the Act reinforced the government's power to block Internet sites and content, and criminalised sending messages deemed inflammatory or offensive.[9] During some of its Internet shutdowns, India cited a law from 1885 meant to regulate telegraphs.[10]

Internet filtering can also be mandated through licensing requirements. For example, ISPs seeking licences to provide Internet services with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) "shall block Internet sites and/or individual subscribers, as identified and directed by the Telecom Authority from time to time" in the interests of "national security".[11] Licence agreements also require ISPs to prevent the transmission of obscene or otherwise objectionable material.[12]

In 2001, the Bombay High Court appointed a committee to oversee issues relating to online pornography and cybercrime.[13] The Court invited the petitioners, Jayesh Thakkar and Sunil Thacker, to make recommendations on cyber laws. The committee published a report analysing the key issues and made recommendations regarding areas such as the licensing of cyber cafés, putative identity cards for cyber café visitors, computer use by minors in public spaces, and maintenance of IP logs by cyber cafés. The committee also recommended that Internet service providers (ISPs) keep correct time logs and records; addressed protection of children from adult websites; advised ISPs to provide parental control software for all Internet connections; and identified lack of technical knowledge among police as a problem. Reports indicate the report was received favorably by the courts, resulting in the implementation of several recommendations, including the establishment of the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell.

In 2003, the Government of India established the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) to ensure Internet security,[14] with a stated mission "to enhance the security of India's Communications and Information Infrastructure through proactive action and effective collaboration".[15] CERT-IN is the agency that accepts and reviews requests to block access to specific websites. All licensed Indian ISPs must comply with its decisions, and there is no review or appeals process. Many institutions, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, courts, the intelligence services, the police and the National Human Rights Commission, may call on it for specialist expertise. By stretching the prohibition against publishing obscene content to include filtering of Web sites, CERT-IN was empowered to review complaints and act as sole authority for issuing blocking instructions to the DoT. Many have argued that giving CERT-IN this power through executive order violates constitutional jurisprudence holding that specific legislation must be passed before the government can encroach on individual rights.[1] For example, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Member of Parliament, commented: "I am mystified by our government's approach both to the internet and to the millions of Indians using it. It does not adhere to the values of our republic and democracy. This matter needs to be addressed urgently, for which I propose to file a PIL in the Supreme Court. Don't kill the freedom of speech, change the IT Rules".[16]

Under the Narendra Modi administration, blocking requests rapidly increased from 6,000 requests annually in January 2018 to 12,600 in 2024, nearly doubling again within a single year to 24,300 in 2025.[17] Blocking orders have increasingly targeted criticisms or parodies of Modi or the Hindutva ideology of the ruling BJP.[18][19][20] The Washington Post reported that biweekly meetings informally termed "69A meetings", where agencies present posts and accounts they want removed to a committee of executives from social media companies, have become longer, sometimes spilling over into days.[21]

The administration has also established legislative provisions granting the MEITy and the Ministry of Information Broadcasting (MIB) expanded powers to enforce censorship. The government has cited reasons such as obscenity, protection of Indian values concerning YouTube commentaries and over-the-top media (OTT) shows, the prevention of "anti-national online content" (such as content covering cross-border conflicts and separatism), and cybercrime prevention (fraud, impersonation, and synthetic abuse).[18][22]

The Ministry of Home Affairs' Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) created the Sahyog portal, operational since October 2024, to automate the sending of takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000, which states that digital platforms can be held accountable for failing to remove unlawful content after the government or its agencies report it. The platform makes provisions for challenging takedown notices and was favorably received by 38 IT intermediaries, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, Sharechat, and LinkedIn, as of 2025. Conversely, some companies expressed criticism; X Corp. challenged the move in court, alleging it bypassed the safeguards of Sections 79 and 69A of the IT Act and questioned its impact on free speech.[23] A ruling upholding the Sahyog portal as an "instrument of public good" was made in the resulting case, X Corp v. Union of India.[24] In February 2026, the takedown notice response period was reduced from a 36-hour window to just 3 hours (with an exception of 2 hours for posts regarding non-consensual nudity), establishing one of the shortest content takedown timelines prescribed globally. The grievance redressal period was also reduced from 14 days to 7 days.[25]

Censorship timeline

Pre-2011

Blocking of Dawn website (1999)

Immediately after the Kargil War in 1999, the website of the Pakistani daily newspaper Dawn was temporarily blocked from access within India by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, a government-owned telecommunications company that at the time had monopoly control of the international Internet gateways in India.[26][27] Rediff, a media news website, claimed that the ban was instigated by the Indian government and subsequently published detailed instructions allowing users to bypass the filter and view the site.[28]

Blocking of Yahoo! groups (2003)

In September 2003, Kynhun, a Yahoo! group linked to the "Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council" (an illegal, minor separatist group from the state of Meghalaya), which discussed the case of the Khasi tribe, was banned.[29] DoT asked Indian ISPs to block the group, but technical difficulties led to all Yahoo! groups being banned for approximately two weeks.[30]

Blocking of 17 websites (2006)

In July 2006, the Indian government ordered the blocking of 17 websites, including some hosted on the GeoCities, Blogspot, and Typepad domains. Initial implementation difficulties led to these domains being blocked entirely,[31][32][33] but access to sites on these domains other than those specifically banned was restored by most ISPs after about a week.[34]

Orkut and Indian law enforcement agreement (2007)

In 2007, Indian law enforcement entered an agreement with the then-popular social networking site Orkut to track down what it deemed defamatory content, which, in their example, included content critical of Indian cartoonist and journalist Bal Thackeray.[35]

2011

Adopting of new IT rules

The "IT Rules 2011" were adopted in April 2011 as a supplement to the 2000 Information Technology Act (ITA). The new rules required Internet companies to remove within 36 hours of being notified by the authorities any content deemed objectionable, particularly if its nature were identified as "defamatory", "hateful", "harmful to minors", or "infringes copyright". Cyber café owners were required to photograph their customers; follow instructions on how their cafés should be set up so all computer screens were in plain sight; keep copies of client IDs and their browsing histories for one year; and forward this data to the government each month.[3]

Banning of websites

In March 2011, the Government banned several websites—Typepad, Mobango, and Clickatell—for some time without warning.[36]

On 21 July of that year, all file hosting websites were blocked by ISPs to prevent copyright infringement of the film Singham, causing anger amongst Internet users.[37] This ban was later lifted.

On 24 December of that year, Reliance Communications, a widely used ISP, again blocked access to file-sharing sites, having obtained a John Doe order from a Delhi court to help protect the movie Don 2 several days before its release. The block was lifted on 30 December.[38][39]

Pre-screening of Internet content

On 5 December 2011, The New York Times India Ink—the publication's "first-ever country-specific site for news, information, culture, and conversation"[40]—reported that the Indian government had asked several social media sites and Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, and Yahoo!, to "prescreen user content from India and to remove disparaging, inflammatory or defamatory content before it goes online".[41] Top officials from the Indian units of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Facebook had several meetings with Kapil Sibal, India's acting telecommunications minister, to discuss the issue. It was reported that Sibal asked these companies to utilize human screening rather than technology for this purpose. The next day, Sibal held a press conference commenting to more than 100 reporters, "We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people", emphasizing the importance of cultural ethos.[42][43]

On the 7th of December, The Times of India revealed that the search engine Google was asked to remove around 358 items by the government, out of which 255 items were said to criticise it as per a Google transparency report, adding that the government had also asked Google to remove 236 items from Orkut and 19 from YouTube for the same reason. Other reasons included defamation (39 requests); privacy and security (20 requests); impersonation (14 requests); hate speech (eight requests); pornography (three requests); and national security (one request). Google admitted that 51% of the total requests were partially or fully complied with.[44]

The news of banning and blocking of objectionable content on the Internet was viewed negatively by many Indian netizens, and #IdiotKapilSibal trended on Twitter following netizens' expression of outrage[45] over what was seen as a way to block websites criticising the government. In an interview to NDTV, Sibal responded by saying that most of the content being requested to be removed was pornographic in nature and involved deities, which could have caused communal disharmony.[46] Sibal claimed that the government primarily wanted to remove pornographic content; however, a transparency report published by Google claimed that content including protests against social leaders or using offensive language in reference to religious leaders was not removed.[47] In its transparency report, Google stated:[48]

We received requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to remove YouTube videos that displayed protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders. We declined the majority of these requests and only locally restricted videos that appeared to violate local laws prohibiting speech that could incite enmity between communities. In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with this request, since the content did not violate our Community Standards or local law.

About this matter, Google also said:[49]

When content is legal and does not violate our policies, we will not remove it just because it is controversial, as we believe that people's differing views, so long as they are legal, should be respected and protected.

Although talks continued between the government and officials of Internet companies like Google and Facebook, there was no consensus on the issue.[50]

Ban on Cartoons Against Corruption

In 2011, a nationwide anti-corruption movement, India Against Corruption, gathered pace under the leadership of a veteran Gandhian, Anna Hazare, demanding passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill to put an ombudsman in place with power to deal with corruption in public places. Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist, joined the crusade and started a cartoon-based campaign, Cartoons Against Corruption, to support the movement with his art. He launched a website, www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com, consisting of his sharp anti-corruption cartoons targeting the corrupt system and politicos.[51]

During a hunger strike by Hazare to support the bill, Trivedi displayed his cartoons on the MMRDA ground, Mumbai.[52][53] On the first day of anti-corruption protests — 27 December — he received an email from BigRock, the domain name registrar with which his website was registered, saying: "We have received a complaint from Crime Branch, Mumbai against the domain name 'cartoonsagainstcorruption.com' for displaying objectionable pictures and texts related to flag and emblem of India. Hence we have suspended the domain name and its associated services."[54] The complaint had been made by a Mumbai-based advocate and Congress Party leader, R.P. Pandey, stating that "defamatory and derogatory cartoons" were displayed as posters during Hazare's hunger strike in Mumbai. Noting that the posters were created by Trivedi and were "believed to be made at the instance of Shri Anna Hazare", the complaint requested "strict legal action in the matter".[55] Following the ban on his website, Trivedi uploaded all the cartoons to a blog he quickly created.[56]

2012

Delhi court summonses

Screenshot of a blocked site

In January 2012, a Delhi court issued summonses to Google and Facebook headquarters for objectionable content.[57] This was followed by the Delhi High Court saying that websites such as Google and Facebook were liable for the content posted on their platform by users, as they benefitted from the content.[58] Google responded to both the Court and Minister for Communication and IT Kapil Sibal, stating that it was impossible to pre-screen content.[59] A plea was made by an educationist, citing that any sanctions against the online services would directly affect fundamental rights and be against public interest.[60] The Delhi Court also allowed Yahoo!'s case to be heard separately after it appealed citing it did not host any objectionable content and did not fall under the social networking site category.[61]

Blocking of websites

Starting 3 May 2012, a number of websites including Vimeo, The Pirate Bay, Torrentz and other torrent sites were blocked by Reliance Communications, on orders from the Department of Telecom, without any stated reasons or prior warnings.[62][63]

Compromising of Reliance DNS servers

In May 2012, Anonymous India (AnonOpsIndia), a branch of the hacktivist group Anonymous, hacked the servers of Reliance Communications to protest the blocking of Vimeo, The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, and other torrent sites. The ISP Reliance Communications stated that it simply followed a court order.[64][65] The group also hacked Reliance DNS servers, preventing direct access to Twitter, Facebook, and many other websites in India on 26 May 2012 for allegedly blocking its Twitter handle @OpIndia_Revenge.[66] They went on to warn the government to restore all the blocked websites by 9 June 2012, and planned nationwide protests on the same date.[67][68] After this hack, Anonymous also released a list of websites that had been blocked by Reliance without any orders from the government, raising questions of private and unaccountable censorship by telecom providers.[69]

Parliamentary annulment motion against 2011 IT rules

An annulment motion against the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011—moved by Member of Parliament (MP) P. Rajeev of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the Rajya Sabha—was the first serious attempt by internet freedom activists to get the Information Technology Act, 2000 discussed and reviewed by the country's lawmakers. Not unexpectedly, the motion (specifically against the rules governing intermediaries – clause (zg) of subsection (2) of section 87 read with subsection (2) of section 79 of the IT Act, 2000) was not carried. However, the discussion that preceded it demonstrated the concerns of parliamentarians about what Internet freedom activists have termed the "draconian" provisions of the IT Act.[70][71]

Save Your Voice campaign

Save Your Voice, a movement against Internet censorship in India,[72] was founded by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and journalist Alok Dixit in January 2012. The movement opposes the Information Technology Act of India and demands democratic rules for the governance of the Internet. The campaign targets rules framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000.[73]

Madras High Court decision that entire websites cannot be blocked

Bayimg.com blocked by orders of Department of Telecom on BSNL broadband network in India as of 13 September 2012

On 15 June 2012, the Madras High Court passed an order saying that entire websites cannot be blocked on the basis of "John Doe" orders:[74]

The order of interim injunction dated 25 April 2012 is hereby clarified that the interim injunction is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website. Further, the applicant is directed to inform about the particulars of URL where the interim movie is kept within 48 hours.

The High Court provided this clarification after being approached by a consortium of Internet service providers (ISPs). The order was welcomed by the Indian media and net users.[75][76]

Banning of domain hosting sites

Starting in July 2012, several domain hosting sites were banned and sites such as Buydomains.com, Fabulous.com, and Sedo.co.uk were blocked. When these sites were opened, a message saying that they had been blocked by the Department of Telecommunications or a court order was displayed.[77][78]

Censorship following Assam violence

Between 18 and 21 August 2012, the Government of India ordered more than 300 specific URLs blocked. The blocked articles, accounts, groups, and videos were said to contain inflammatory content with fictitious details relating to Assam violence and supposedly promoting the North East exodus. These URLs included the domains of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, BlogSpot, WordPress, Google Plus, the Times of India, Wikipedia, and others.[79] Many of the blocked URLs focused on right-wing activism against corruption in India.[80][81]

This blockage raised questions about freedom of speech in the largest democracy in the world, and also about the censorship of people and posts debunking rumours.[82] The Economic Times called it levels of censorship "that have not so far been seen in India".[83] Over four days from 18 August on, the Government of India issued directives to ISPs to block the Twitter accounts of two Delhi-based journalists–Kanchan Gupta and Shiv Aroor–and Pravin Togadia. The government also blocked the website of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and several other right-wing websites.[83] In addition, articles from Wikipedia and news reports of violence in Assam on the websites of The Times of India, Firstpost, The Daily Telegraph, and Al Jazeera were blocked.[83] A petition was created by the Indian diaspora in the US to oppose Internet censorship in India.[84]

Defacement of Telecom Minister's website

In November 2012, Anonymous India defaced Indian Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal's constituency website in protest against an amendment to the Information Technology Act and the recent crackdown on netizens for comments posted online.[85]

Defacement of BSNL website

The website of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's (BSNL), www.bsnl.co.in, was hacked by Anonymous India on 13 December 2012. They defaced the website with a picture stating that they were protesting against section 66A of the IT Act and in support of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and journalist Alok Dixit. The duo went on a hunger striker to protest against section 66A.[86][87]

2013

Blocking of 39 websites

In an order dated 13 June 2013, the DoT directed Indian ISPs to block 39 websites, although the order did not specify a reason or law under which the websites were to be blocked. Most were web forums in which Internet users shared images and URLs to pornographic files. However, some of the websites were also image and file hosts, mostly used to store and share files that were not pornographic. Although watching or distributing child pornography is illegal in India, watching adult pornography is not. The blocked websites were hosted outside India and claimed to operate under a U.S. rule requiring performers to be over 18 years of age.[88]

2014

Ban of file-sharing and file-hosting sites

In an order dated 23 June 2014, the Delhi High Court, upon a request made by Sony Entertainment, ordered 472 file-sharing and file-hosting websites blocked, including The Pirate Bay, Google Docs, Google Videos, and Google's URL shortener (goo.gl). This was contrary to the 2012 Madras High Court orders that blocked only URLs referencing web pages with illegal content, rather than entire websites.[89] However, it was reported on 7 July 2014 that an updated court order blocked 219 sites. Many file storage and torrent websites were included, but no Google sites.[90]

Blocking of Savukku.net site

In an interim order on a petition filed by newsreader Mahalaxmi, Justice Cyril Selvam blocked the entire website www.savukku.net. This order, dated 28 February 2014, directly contradicted an earlier order by the Madras High Court dated 15 April 2012 against banning the entire website instead of specific URLs.[91] Earlier in February, Savukku.net had exposed tapes of communication between DMK MP Kanimozhi and former Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Jaffer Sait; between Jaffer Sait and Kalaignar TV's former director Sharad Kumar; and between DMK President M Karunanidhi's Secretary K.Shanmuganathan and Jaffer Sait.[92] Judge Selvam was considered close to Karunanidhi's family:

Justice CT Selvam became judge of the Madras High Court when Karunanidhi was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during 2006–2011. Just a couple of hours before taking oath as judge Justice Selvam called on Karunanidhi and got his blessings and this was revealed through a govt press release with photograph by the Tamil Nadu government's Information Department.[92]

The DoT ordered the blocking of 32 websites including the Internet Archive, GitHub, Dailymotion, and Vimeo, as they could host terror content relating to ISIS; but the sites were no longer blocked as of 1 January 2015 as the order had been reversed and the unblocking process had begun on compliant websites.[93]

2015

On 1 August 2015, 857 pornographic sites were blocked under section 79 3(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to restrict access to pornographic content. The list of sites, containing popular ones, had been generated by Suresh Kumar Shukla,[94][95] founder of Filternet Foundation, maker of pornography-blocking software, and given to government officials by petitioner Kamlesh Vaswani on 17 October 2014 in the Supreme Court of India.[96] The block was ordered by the DoT on 31 July 2015, copies of the order of which are available through media websites;[97][98][99][100][101] but the agency lifted the ban shortly afterward on 5 August, as porn was a major Internet traffic (as high as 70%) and telecom companies were losing revenue. Additionally, people criticised the law enforcement (section 67 of the IT Act 2000).[102][103]

2016

After the high-profile death of Burhan Wani, a Kashmiri Islamist militant in Indian-administered Kashmir and the ensuing protests in July 2016, the government shut down the Internet in the area for five months.[104] In August, some Bollywood studios came up with a public education message that black money generated from the pre-release of their content through offline markets was being used for terrorism, though their sources were not clear. Reports did show that piracy losses were significantly high.[105]

In August of that year, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) told a court that Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! had agreed to censor all information on their search engines related to prenatal sex discernment in order to comply with the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.[106][107]

2017

In August 2017, the Madras High Court ordered that the Internet Archive be blocked in India, following complaints by film studios that the service had been used to disseminate copyright-infringing copies of their films.[108] Following the block, the Internet Archive successfully appealed, and the Madras High Court later modified its order, resulting in the unblocking of the site.

2018

In October 2018, the government directed ISPs to block 827 websites that hosted pornographic content, following an order by the state of Uttarakhand High Court, effectively reinstating the previously rescinded 2015 porn ban. Although the Court had asked for 857 websites to be blocked, MEITy removed 30 portals with no pornographic content listings. The Court also asked the DoT to ban pornographic websites in India, citing an incident from Dehradun in which a 10th-standard girl was raped by four of her seniors, who later told police that they had done so after watching pornographic content on the Web. As per the directions of the Uttarakhand High Court and the regulations of DoT, Indian ISPs banned pornographic websites across the country.[109]

2019

Between January and October of that year, MEITy revealed that it had issued blocking orders for 20 websites in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) India, a Delhi-based not-for-profit legal services organisation.[110]

During the same period, the ministry ordered social media platforms to take down 3,433 URLs[111] under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to block users and posts across social media platforms.[112] An Indian court ordered Facebook, Twitter, and Google to remove government-flagged content globally, not just in India.[113]

In February of that year, the Indian government had proposed giving itself new powers. Under the new proposed rules, Indian officials could demand Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok, WhatsApp, and other platforms to remove posts or videos that the officials deemed unlawful or an invasion of privacy and could trace a message to its original sender.[114]

Over 130 complaints around the country from users appeared about blocked access to VPN, proxy sites. There were also reports of platforms like Telegram, Reddit, and SoundCloud being inaccessible. There was no official word from the DoT on why these platforms were blocked, a common practice by DoT, which has a record of being non-transparent about blockings.[115]

2020

In June 2020, in retaliation for a military clash between Indian and Chinese troops in a disputed territory along the shared border between Ladakh and western China, the Indian government banned around 60 mobile apps published by Chinese companies, most notably including TikTok, WeChat, and mobile games such as PUBG Mobile.[116][117][118] The stated reason for the bans was to protect India's sovereignty, integrity, and security, and its citizens from software that was "stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users' data in an unauthorised manner to servers outside India".[117][119] Apar Gupta, executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), said the censorship was absent from well-defined national security criteria and had "impacted more Indians than any before".[120] The Indian Express said that the loss of revenue might drive Indian TikTok stars to rival platforms.[121] The Times of India published an editorial supporting the block.[122]

Around 40 websites operated by the pro-Khalistan outfit Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) were blocked in response to its starting registrations on its websites for Referendum 2020.[123] There were several reports of the search engine DuckDuckGo being inaccessible to Indian users.[124]

In July, environmental groups leading the movement against the Indian government's new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020 Draft reported that their websites were inaccessible to users in India. In addition, Fridays for Future India and several other environmental collectives reported that their websites were blocked/taken down, for reasons unknown to them and without prior notice of any sort.[125]

During the curfew in Jammu and Kashmir after revocation of its autonomous status on 5 August 2019, the Indian government ordered Twitter to block accounts spreading "anti-India" content.[126]

2021

Twitter during farmers' protests

In early February, Twitter refused to comply with orders from the Indian government to ban over a thousand accounts related to farmers' protests. The government warned Twitter employees that they could face up to seven years in jail if the company failed to remove certain accounts that the government alleged were spreading misinformation.[127]

On 10 February, the company took action on more than 500 accounts and also reduced the visibility of several hashtags that violated its rules, stating, however, that accounts belonging to news media outlets, journalists, and activists or politicians were not taken down.[128] This defiance angered officials, leading to the government's[21] issuance of new rules aimed at social media companies to comply with local laws, among them the requirement for social media companies to publish a compliance report every month detailing the complaints and the actions taken on them.[129]

Government's handling of COVID-19 pandemic

In late April, many citizens were angry with the government's poor performance in handling the COVID-19 pandemic[130] and took to social media to express their dissatisfaction. Following an emergency order by the government to Twitter to take down tweets from high-profile users criticising its handling of the pandemic, the company complied and withheld these tweets for users in India.[131] The hashtag #crocodiletears, which criticised Prime Minister Modi, was ordered to be removed and information on the users who tweeted it to be handed over. When the company resisted, officials claimed that it was being used by terrorists, with a later additional claim that it had pornography. A Twitter investigator found some posts being sent from a location near a police building, and concluded that the government was trying to justify the censorship requests.[21]

Twitter's labelling of BJP politicians' tweets

In May, Twitter labelled tweets from several BJP politicians including Sambit Patra, its spokesperson, as "manipulated media". In the tweet, he claimed that Congress was using a "toolkit" to derail the government's efforts of handling the pandemic. The government expressed strong objections over the labels, saying that Twitter acted prejudicially, and asking the company to remove the labels in the interest of "fairness and equity".[132]

Subsequently, Delhi Police with TV cameras visited Twitter's Delhi and Gurgaon offices to seek more information.[21] After an hour, however, the police vacated the premises because the offices were closed and no employees were present to engage with. In a statement, the Delhi Police disputed the description of the search event as "raiding"[133] although reportedly, the police had not had a search warrant.[134]

Twitter expressed concerns for its employees, the police's intimidation tactics, and the potential threat to freedom of expression in India. It also said it was particularly concerned over the rule whereby the compliance officer—a position to be set up by social media companies with over 5 million users under new social media rules—would be criminally liable for the content on the platform. The company requested the government for a three-month extension to enforce the new requirements.[135] In a Right to Information Act (RTI) reply to the IFF, the Ministry of Electronics and IT said it did not have the power to direct Twitter to not label these tweets as misleading.[136]

The company became more compliant with taking down tweets and accounts requested by the government, especially after Elon Musk's purchase of the company. Through a wave of new regulations and the weight of law enforcement agencies, the government changed Twitter from being a company heavily resistant to censorship requests to one that largely complies.[21]

2022

In 2022, under national security grounds, new regulations were implemented by CERT-IN to require retention of customer data by VPN, web hosting services, and cloud service providers for five years. Accordingly, some VPN providers, such as ExpressVPN and Surfshark, announced that they would no longer use servers under Indian jurisdiction in order to preserve the privacy of their customers.[137]

2023

In April 2023, new regulations were enacted that would require online intermediaries to censor and remove content deemed to be false or misleading by a body appointed by MEITy.[138][139]

2024

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

In July 2024, Asian News International (ANI) filed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court, claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia, and seeking ₹2 crore (US$210,000) in damages.[140][141][142] On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia in contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors who had made changes to the article, warning that Wikipedia might be blocked in India upon further non-compliance. The judge on the case stated, "If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block your site".[143][144] In response, Wikimedia emphasised that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.[145] Justice Manmohan said, "I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes."[146] On 21 October, the Wikimedia Foundation suspended access to the article for the lawsuit itself, due to an order from the Court stating that the article violated the sub judice principle. This is believed to be the first time an English Wikipedia page had been taken down after a court order.[147][148]

On 17 March 2025, at a hearing in the Supreme Court of India, a two-judge bench, consisting of BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan, questioned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that judges and courts should be more tolerant of criticism and that requiring removal of content because of criticism might not be correct. At the same time, the judges also stated that the order was about freedom of the press. The court remarked, "This concerns press freedom. If it is Wikipedia today, it could be someone else tomorrow."[149][150][151] On 9 May of that year, the Supreme Court of India reversed the Delhi High Court's decision to take down the article about the defamation case,[152][153] and access to the article was restored.[154]

2025

India banned 16 Pakistani YouTube channels with 63 million subscribers for spreading provocative communal content after the Pahalgam terror attack, based on recommendations from the Home Ministry.[155][156] On 9 May, amidst the 2025 India–Pakistan standoff, the Indian government ordered X (formerly Twitter) to withhold 8,000 accounts from India. The block list included foreign media Global Times, Xinhua News Agency, and TRT World; Indian news outlets Maktoob Media, The Kashmiriyat and The Wire; and prominent users, including Indian journalist Anuradha Bhasin.[157] X stated that it had not received information on specific posts, and in some cases no evidence or justification at all, for the accounts ordered blocked. France 24 linked the blocking spree to a campaign targeting the social media of prominent Pakistani individuals and media.[158]

On 19 August, Delhi High Court banned Sci-Hub and Library Genesis following a lawsuit by Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society that alleged copyright violation.[159][160][161]

2026

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified by the Centre on February 10, 2026, mandate tools to detect and label synthetically generated information (SGI), requires platforms to warn users about terms of service compliance every three months, and significantly lowers the takedown notice response period. Platforms must now respond to takedown requests within 3 hours (and 2 hours for non-consensual nudity), creating the shortest content takedown timeline prescribed by any government. The grievance redressal period was also reduced from 14 days to 7 days. While some welcomed the move as necessary regulation for synthetic content, critics cited a lack of public consultation and warned that a 3-hour response window could pressure tech platforms to err on the side of censorship to retain their Section 79 ITA immunity.[162] The US Trade representative (USTR) criticized the move as the imposition of an impractical compliance deadline and noted an increased quantity of politically motivated takedown requests.[25]

On 31 March 2026, MEITy published draft IT second amendment rules, 2026. The draft proposed expanding the MIB oversight mechanism beyond publications and OTT platforms to include "intermediaries and users who are not 'publishers' and post/share news and current affairs content online". It also required all intermediaries and platforms to adhere to any "clarification, advisory, order, direction, standard operating procedure, or guideline issued by the MEITy," effectively removing the distinction between voluntary advisories and mandatory compliance.[163] Digital rights activists, including the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), criticized the move as "digital authoritarianism" and a circumvention method to control media independence.[164][165]

In March 2026, reports surfaced of escalated government actions to withhold accounts in India instead of blocking specific online content through Section 69A of the ITA. Concerns over censorship overreach were raised as accounts posting internet memes and satirical content critical of the government were targeted.[166][167] The IFF criticized this trend as "secret and inaccessible censorship," arguing it undermined the procedural safeguards established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.[168]

Another instance of widespread blocking occurred when a platform-wide ban was issued on the Telegram messenger for one week until 22 June 2026. The ban was enacted as “a response to the organised use of the platform by cheating rackets to defraud candidates appearing for the NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination scheduled on 21 June 2026," affecting over 150 million active users in India. This ban was executed despite Telegram's compliance with previous orders to block 1,300 links related to the exam leaks.[169][170] Telegram challenged the ban as an infringement on free speech rights; however, the Delhi High Court upheld the ban, citing the "emergency nature" of the order and the potential for the platform to be used to spread misinformation and cause public disorder.[171]

Blocked websites

The process of blocking websites in India is non-transparent and the government does not maintain a public list of all the blocked websites.[172] Over the years, the government has banned thousands of websites and URLs in the country with the help of ISPs or under court directive. For example, in August 2015, the central government of India ordered the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and ISPs based in India to ban domestic and international porn websites; and in June 2016, it further banned over 200 URLs for providing "escort services".[173]

In response, nearly 857 websites were blocked.[174] Star India Pvt. Ltd. successfully gained court authorisation to force ISPs to block entire websites to tackle internet piracy of its copyrighted content. Critics and digital rights activists raised concerns over these proceedings, alleging that the orders were overly broad, targeted platforms with user-generated content, and lacked proper expiry periods for the blocks. Prathiba M Singh, representing Star India, cited the poor resources of media companies to constantly track individual infringing URLs as justification for domain-level blocking. Legal representatives for the company termed the targeted sites "rogue websites." Critics argued this approach favored corporate interests over a free internet and restricted legitimate access.[175][176][177][178][179]

In August 2016, reports circulated that users could face a three-year jail sentence and a ₹300,000 (equivalent to ₹430,000 or US$4,500 in 2023) fine for merely viewing or accessing blocked torrent websites, due to a specific warning message displayed by ISPs like Tata Communications and Airtel. The message cited Sections 63, 63-A, 65, and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957. This caused widespread concern among internet users and legal experts regarding potential overreach and mass arrests. However, the Bombay High Court subsequently clarified that simply viewing a blocked copyright-infringing website does not constitute a punishable offence under the Copyright Act, and directed ISPs to modify the overly broad warning messages to accurately reflect the law.[180]

The warning message initially provided to Tata and Airtel users read:[181]

This URL has been blocked under the instructions of the Competent Government Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit copy of the contents under this URL is punishable as an offence under the laws of India, including but not limited to under Sections 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 which prescribe imprisonment for three years and also fine of up to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Any person aggrieved by any such blocking of this URL may contact at urlblock [at] tatacommunications [dot] com who will, within 48 hours, provide the details of relevant proceedings under which the relevant High Court or Authority can be approached for redressal of the grievance.

Patent lawyers suggested making practical changes in copyright laws to match the current e-environment, such as making materials accessible within six months to one year and protecting the content from manipulation and creative infringement to lessen piracy problems.[182]

In a response to an RTI application by SFLC India, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stated that 14,221 websites/URLs had been blocked between 2010 and 2018.[183]

In 2011, journalist Tanul Thakur created the Dowry Calculator, a satirical website on the dowry system. In 2018, the website was blocked by the Government of India, which was challenged by Thakur, with legal assistance from the IFF before the Delhi High Court in November 2019, as being illegal and unconstitutional. The case came up for hearing on 21 March 2022, and the Court recorded Thakur's submissions that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the website was blocked. The Court directed the Union of India to provide the entire case record, and asked it to consider giving Thakur a post-decisional hearing, including opportunity to take corrective measures, if necessary.[184]

In February 2022, the website of VideoLAN, the developers of the free and open-source media player software VLC Media Player, was blocked by most Indian ISPs. In October 2022, VideoLAN, with assistance from the IFF, filed a legal notice seeking information on the block, alleging that the government had breached the site blocking rules by not providing notice or opportunity for a hearing. Although formal information about the block's reasoning was not published, the block was lifted in November 2022.[185][186][187]

Blocked mobile applications

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by editing the page to add missing items, with references to reliable sources.

This is a list of notable applications that have been banned in India pursuant to section 69-A of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.[188] MEITy blocked 59 mobile apps in June 2020, 47 in July 2020, 118 in September 2020, 43 in November 2020, 54 in February 2022, and 232 in February 2023.[189] The first round of application bans in 2020 followed the Galwan Valley clash between India and China, with officials releasing a list of banned apps citing the sovereignty and integrity of India, data safety, and privacy concerns, including TikTok, WeChat and Shein.[190][191][192] Fourteen communication apps were banned in May 2023, as they were allegedly being used by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir; notably, these included open-source end-to-end communication platforms like Briar and Element.[193]

In response to a question posed to MEITy in March 2026, it informed the Lok Sabha that the government has blocked 652 mobile applications.[190]

List of banned mobile apps in India
29 June 20202 September 20202 May 2023
TikTokPUBG MobileWickrme
SHAREitAPUS Launcher Pro- Theme, Live Wallpapers, SmartMediafire
KwaiAPUS Launcher -Theme, Call Show, Wallpaper, Hide AppsBriar
UC BrowserAPUS Security -Antivirus, Phone security, CleanerBChat
Baidu MapsAPUS Turbo Cleaner 2020- Junk Cleaner, Anti-VirusNandbox
SheinAPUS Flashlight-Free & BrightConion
Clash of KingsCut Cut – Cut Out & Photo Background EditorIMO
DU battery saverBaiduElement
HeloBaidu Express EditionSecond line
LikeeFaceU - Inspire your BeautyZangi
YouCam PerfectShareSave by Xiaomi: Latest gadgets, amazing dealsThreema
Mi CommunityCamCard - Business Card ReaderCrypviser
CM BrowerCamCard BusinessEnigma
Virus CleanerCamCard for SalesforceSafeswiss
APUS BrowseCamOCR
ROMWEInNote
Club FactoryVooV Meeting - Tencent Video Conferencing
NewsdogSuper Clean - Master of Cleaner, Phone Booster
Beauty PlusWeChat reading
WeChatGovernment WeChat
UC NewsSmall Q brush
QQ MailTencent Weiyun
WeiboPitu
XenderWeChat Work
QQ MusicCyber Hunter
QQ NewsfeedCyber Hunter Lite
Bigo LiveKnives Out-No rules, just fight!
SelfieCitySuper Mecha Champions
Mail MasteroLifeAfter
Parallel SpaceDawn of Isles
Mi Video Call - XiaomiLudo World-Ludo Superstar
WeSyncChess Rush
ES File ExplorerPUBG MOBILE Nordic Map: Livik
Viva Video - QU Video IncPUBG MOBILE LITE
MeituRise of Kingdoms: Lost Crusade
Vigo VideoArt of Conquest: Dark Horizon
New Video StatusDank Tanks
DU RecorderWarpath
Vault- HideGame of Sultans
Cache Cleaner DU App studioGallery Vault - Hide Pictures And Videos
DU CleanerSmart AppLock (App Protect)
DU BrowserMessage Lock (SMS Lock)-Gallery Vault Developer Team
Hago Play With New FriendsHide App-Hide Application Icon
CamScannerAppLock
Clean MasterAppLock Lite
Wonder CameraDual Space - Multiple Accounts & App Cloner
Photo WonderZAKZAK Pro - Live chat & video chat online
QQ PlayerZAKZAK LIVE: live-streaming & video chat app
We MeetMusic - Mp3 Player
Sweet SelfieMusic Player - Audio Player & 10 Bands Equalizer
Baidu TranslateHD Camera Selfie Beauty Camera
VmateCleaner - Phone Booster
QQ InternationalWeb Browser & Fast Explorer
QQ Security CenterVideo Player All Format for Android
QQ LauncherPhoto Gallery HD & Editor
U VideoPhoto Gallery & Album
V fly Status VideoMusic Player - Bass Booster - Free Download
Mobile Legends: Bang BangHD Camera - Beauty Cam with Filters & Panorama
DU PrivacyHD Camera Pro & Selfie Camera
Music Player - MP3 Player & 10 Bands Equalizer
Gallery HD
Web Browser - Fast, Privacy & Light Web Explorer
Web Browser - Secure Explorer
Music player - Audio Player
Video Player - All Format HD Video Player
Lamour Love All Over The World
Amour- video chat & call all over the world
MV Master - Make Your Status Video & Community
MV Master - Best Video Maker & Photo Video Editor
APUS Message Center-Intelligent management
LivU Meet new people & Video chat with strangers
Carrom Friends : Carrom Board & Pool Game
Ludo All Star- Play Online Ludo Game & Board Games
Bike Racing : Moto Traffic Rider Bike Racing Games
Rangers Of Oblivion : Online Action MMO RPG Game
Z Camera - Photo Editor, Beauty Selfie, Collage
GO SMS Pro - Messenger, Free Themes, Emoji
U-Dictionary: Oxford Dictionary Free Now Translate
Ulike - Define your selfie in trendy style
Tantan - Date For Real
MICO Chat: New Friends Banaen aur Live Chat karen
Kitty Live - Live Streaming & Video Live Chat
Malay Social Dating App to Date & Meet Singles
Alipay
AlipayHK
Mobile Taobao
Youku
Road of Kings- Endless Glory
Sina News
Netease News
Penguin FM
Murderous Pursuits
Tencent Watchlist (Tencent Technology)
Learn Chinese AI-Super Chinese
HUYA LIVE – Game Live Stream
Little Q Album
Fighting Landlords - Free and happy Fighting Landlords
Hi Meitu
Mobile Legends: Pocket
VPN for TikTok
Penguin E-sports Live assistant
Buy Cars-offer everything you need, special offers and low prices
iPick
Beauty Camera Plus - Sweet Camera & Face Selfie
Parallel Space Lite - Dual App
Chief Almighty: First Thunder BC
Marvel Super War
AFK Arena
Creative Destruction
Crusaders of Light
Mafia City
Onmyoji
Ride Out Heroes
Yimeng Jianghu-Chu Liuxiang has been fully upgraded
Legend: Rising Empire
Arena of Valor
Soul Hunters
Rules of Survival

Internet shutdowns

India reportedly has the highest number of internet shutdowns in the world—even higher than all other countries combined—with 771 shutdowns imposed between 2016 and 2023, according to Access Now.[194] In 2018 the organisation reported that India accounted for 134 out of 196 documented Internet shutdowns globally.[195]

The reasons for the shutdowns range from protests and political unrest to elections and exams. Internet shutdowns have often helped the government to throttle dissent and mass public gatherings.[196] The think tank Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) estimated that the 16,315 hours of Internet shutdown between 2012 and 2017 cost the Indian economy approximately $3.04 billion.[197] It was further estimated that in 2020, Internet shutdowns caused US$2.8 billion of damage to India's economy, harming businesses, teaching, and health care.[198] In 2021, India recorded a total of 317.5 hours of Internet shutdown and 840 hours of bandwidth throttling, costing $582.8 million.[199]

The majority of shutdowns were imposed on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and later the union territory of the same name, which experienced the world's longest recorded Internet shutdown of 552 days during the 2019-2021 lockdown. Other shutdowns include a blackout in the state of Manipur during the 2023–2024 Manipur violence.[194]

Instances of Internet Shutdowns 2012–2024
YearAs per internetshutdowns.in[200] As per Access Now[201]
20123
20135
20146
201514
201631 30
201779 69
2018136 134
2019109 121
2020132 108
2021 100 108
2022 77 85
2023 96 116
2024 60 84
2025 54

Jammu and Kashmir

Before revocation of the autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir, Internet services were shut down as part of curfew and complete communications blackout—including cable TV, landlines, and cellphones—on 4 August 2019.[202] Internet was restored on 25 January 2020, when the government allowed people of Kashmir to access the Internet on 2G with whitelisted websites, but it was not until a year later in February 2021 that access to high-speed Internet was restored.[203] This blockade and other frequent Internet shutdowns in the region have been termed digital apartheid by a local human rights group.[204] Many students were affected during lockdown because they could not study properly in their online classes due to overly slow Internet speed. Broadband services were not restored until 5 March 2020 because of technical error preventing BSNL from doing so, at which point broadband was restored with full access but mobile Internet at only 2G.

The state government of Jammu and Kashmir shut down the Internet on 17–18 March 2014 in Jammu and Kashmir to stop separatists from addressing a United Nations Human Rights Council sideline event in Geneva, Switzerland via video link.[205] Internet access was again shut down for mobile and landline broadband in July 2016 against the backdrop of protests.

On 26 April 2017,[206] the state government also ordered the various ISPs operating in the valley to block access to 22 social networking websites for one month, charging among other things that they were "endangering public life and property and causing unrest/disharmony in the state". The order was passed by exercising powers conferred under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which had technically become obsolete c. 2008 when the Government of India decided to stop all telegraph services in the country.[citation needed] As a result of this censorship, people living in the valley resorted to circumvention tactics in the form of using web proxies, VPNs among other things. The popularity of these tactics moved the government to block access to Android Play Store, among other services, for some time to prevent citizens from getting access to these services.[citation needed]

The banned services included widely used services such as Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, but the list also included websites like QQ, Baidu, and Qzone, which were not used outside of mainland China. Xanga, a website on the list, shut down in 2013.[207] The inclusion of these websites, mostly in Mandarin, had people concerned that the censorship was an attempt to suppress dissent by all means necessary, as opposed to the claim of "maintaining peace and harmony".[citation needed]

Rajasthan

In In September 2021, Internet services across Rajasthan were suspended to prevent cheating on the teachers recruitment exam.[208] The next month the Internet was suspended in four districts of Rajasthan following violent protests[209] and across Rajasthan in view of the Rajasthan Administrative services exam.[210]

Internet services were also blocked in the state for days amid Hindu-Muslim religious tensions in the aftermath of the murder of Kanhaiya Lal in June 2022 to stop the spread of a video made by his killers.[211]

Gujarat

The State Government of Gujarat shut down the Internet in Vadodara, from 27 to 30 September 2014 due to clashes between two communities, even though only the central government had the power to shut it down under the Information Technology Act, 2000,[212] and in a declared state of emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution of India when freedom of speech and expression was suspended. No formal announcement was made about this shutdown by the city police or the ISPs.[213][214][215]

When the Patidar reservation agitation turned violent on 25 August 2015, the Internet services on mobile phones and broadband were restricted as certain social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook were blocked from 26 to 31 August 2015 across the state.[216]

Nagaland

The State Government of Nagaland shut down the Internet for the entire state on 7 March 2015 for 48 hours due to the mob lynching of a man.[217][218]

Both SMS and Internet/data services were suspended in the state from 30 January to 20 February 2017 after being blocked for 20 days that had been initiated to prevent spread of violence in the state. This situation arose when two Naga tribal bodies served a three-day ultimatum to Zeliang, an acronym for three distinct but related Naga tribes, to step down following the government's decision to hold local body elections with 33% reservation for women in 12 towns across the state and the death of two persons in clashes between police and protestors at Dimapur, Nagaland's commercial hub, on the night of 31 January 2017.[219][220][221]

Manipur

The State Government of Manipur shut down the Internet of some service providers that provided Internet through mobile technology 2G/3G/4G in the state from the evening of 1 September to the afternoon of 8 September 2015, due to agitation over the passing of three bills. Police and protesters clashed in different areas of the Churachandpur district as mobs went on a rampage attacking residences of ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), and members of Parliament (MPs).[222][223][224]

Internet shutdowns were again imposed in the state during the 2023–2024 Manipur violence, when ethnic clashes between communities led the state government to suspend mobile Internet services across large parts of Manipur for several months. Authorities stated that the shutdown was intended to prevent the spread of rumours, misinformation, and inflammatory content on social media that could escalate violence.[225][226]

The prolonged shutdown in Manipur during 2023 was widely reported to be among the longest internet restrictions imposed in the world that year, drawing criticism from digital rights groups and raising debates over the balance between security concerns and access to communication services.

The government ordered the respective deputy commissioner (DC) to shut down mobile data service in Imphal West and Imphal East district from 17 December 2016 till further order.[227] The next day, the Home Department of the Government of Manipur was ordered to shut down all mobile data services and SMSs in the state from 10:00 on 18 December to 10:00 on 30 December 2016.[228]

The government ordered all forms of telecom services except voice calls suspended in Manipur for five days, taking effect from the night of 19 July 2018 to prevent anti-national and anti-social messages on social media. Raghumani Singh, Special Secretary (Home) – Manipur, said in an order issued in the governor's name that the prohibition was imposed under Rule II of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.[229][230]

A second time in 2018, the government ordered shutdown of mobile data services in Manipur for five days, taking effect from 21 September 2018. Again the prohibition was imposed under Rule II of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. An order issued by Special Secretary (Home) – Manipur Singh said the step was taken to prevent spread of rumours, "which might have serious repercussion for the law and order situation in the entire state of Manipur".[231][232]

For the third time, the state government ordered a shutdown of mobile data services in Manipur for five days under the leadership of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in 2019, amidst protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill that took effect at midnight of 11 February 2019. District Magistrate for Imphal West Naorem Praveen Singh also barred cable news channels from "transmission of agitation or protest" indefinitely "until further orders", under section 19 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, prohibiting transmission of agitation or protests that might lead to violence.[233][234]

Internet and mobile data services were restored after an order in the name of the governor, issued by Raghumani Singh, Special Secretary (Home) – Manipur on 13 February 2019. The CAB[clarification needed] was not tabled on Rajya Sabha, as the law and order situation improved and came back to normalcy.

On 16 March 2020, the Government of Manipur issued an order, signed by H. Gyan Prakash[clarification needed] in the name of the governor, to suspend Internet services for three days to avoid usage of social media networks, which might lead to escalation of an incident between two communities at Chasad Village in the Kamjong district.[235][236] Internet services were restored the next day, reducing the period of suspension to one day.[citation needed]

On 6 August 2022, the Government of Manipur again issued an order, signed by H. Gyan Prakash in the name of the governor, to suspend Internet mobile services for five days to avoid usage of social media networks, which might lead to escalation of the tense situation in Manipur. Three days later, the Government of Manipur issued an order relaxing the suspension, signed by H. Gyan Prakash, in view of positive developments.[237]

Andhra Pradesh

The State Government of Andhra Pradesh shut down the Internet in Amalapuram, Andhra Pradesh on 25 May 2022, due to violent protests regarding the name change of the Konaseema district, where Amalapuram is located.[238][239][clarification needed]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 "ONI Country Profile: India" Archived 17 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Access Contested, Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski and Jonathan Zittrain (Eds), OpenNet Initiative, MIT Press, November 2011, pp. 299–308
  2. ↑ Due to legal concerns the OpenNet Initiative does not check for filtering of child pornography and because their classifications focus on technical filtering, they do not include other types of censorship.
  3. 1 2 Internet Enemies Archived 23 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine, Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2012
  4. ↑ "India: Freedom on the Net 2024 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
  5. ↑ "Table of FOTN Country Scores". Freedom House. 13 June 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2023.
  6. ↑ "India – Country Report". Freedom House. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 3 February 2017.
  7. ↑ "Table of Country Scores FOTN 2017". freedomhouse.org. 4 November 2016.
  8. ↑ "India Country Report", Freedom on the Net 2012, Freedom House. Retrieved 25 September 2012
  9. ↑ "Internet Freedom", 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011
  10. ↑ "What Happens When the Internet is Out, and the Government is to Blame?". Global Press Journal. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 21 June 2025.
  11. ↑ Schedule C, Section 1.10.2 Archived 8 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications Telecom Commission, Licence Agreement for Provision of Internet Service (including Internet Telephony)
  12. ↑ Schedule C, Section 1.12.9 Archived 8 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications Telecom Commission, Licence Agreement for Provision of Internet Service (including Internet Telephony)
  13. ↑ Report to Recommend Measures to Protect and Shield Minors from Pornographic and Obscene Material on the Internet Archived 1 July 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Committee Appointed by the Bombay High Court, 30 January 2002
  14. ↑ "Indian Computer Emergency Response Team", website, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India
  15. ↑ CERT-IN "Charter and Mission", Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India
  16. ↑ "Don't Kill Freedom Of Speech" Archived 28 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Times of India, 30 November 2012
  17. ↑ "Centre's online content blocking orders double to 24,000 in a year, over half on X". The Indian Express. 27 April 2026. Retrieved 7 May 2026.
  18. 1 2 "Three Justifications and the AI Accelerant of India's Digital Censorship Infrastructure". Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). 6 May 2026. Retrieved 7 May 2026.
  19. ↑ Vasudev, Amit (19 March 2026). "Dozens of parody, satire accounts blocked in India as Centre cracks whip on social media". The South First | News, Politics, Sports, Entertainment & Live Updates. Retrieved 7 May 2026.
  20. ↑ Kumar, Abhishek (26 March 2026). "Cartoons, criticism and crackdowns: How Section 69A is being used to silence dissent". Alt News. Retrieved 7 May 2026.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 Mehrota, Karishma; Menn, Joseph (8 November 2023). "How India tamed Twitter and set a global standard for online censorship". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 November 2023.
  22. ↑ "The rise of infrastructure for digital censorship". Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). 12 April 2026. Retrieved 20 April 2026.
  23. ↑ Pandey, Kamya (1 April 2025). "Explained: What is Sahyog Portal that X called out for censorship?". MediaNama. Retrieved 1 March 2026.
  24. ↑ Gour, Harsh (6 November 2025). "An exhaustive takedown of Karnataka HC's decision upholding Sahyog portal in X Corp v. Union of India". The Leaflet. Retrieved 1 March 2026.
  25. 1 2 "US calls India's online censorship mechanism 'politically motivated', cites 'increasing' takedown requests: Here's what to know". The Indian Express. 2 April 2026. Retrieved 3 April 2026.
  26. ↑ "India blocks Pakistani newspaper web site", Newswatch.in, 5 July 1999
  27. ↑ "Grateful Dawn group writes to Express", Express News Service, 15 July 1999
  28. ↑ "Click here to read Dawn", Srikant Sreenivasan and Priya Ganapati, Rediff on the Net, 5 July 1999
  29. ↑ "India blocks Yahoo! Groups", Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 24 September 2003
  30. ↑ "India Bans One Yahoo Discussion Group" Archived 17 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Shibu Thomas, InfoWar Monitor, 29 September 2003
  31. ↑ "Blocking the Blogs". Outlook India. 18 July 2006. Retrieved 19 July 2006.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  32. ↑ Sengupta, Somini (18 July 2006). "India Blocks Blogs in Wake of Mumbai Bombings". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 July 2006.
  33. ↑ "Blog blockade will be lifted in 48 hours", Rediff News, 19 July 2006
  34. ↑ "Bloggers are back in business". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 25 July 2006. Archived from the original on 1 October 2007. Retrieved 30 July 2006.
  35. ↑ "Orkut's tell-all pact with cops", The Economic Times, 1 May 2007
  36. ↑ "Updated: Indian Government Blocks Typepad, Mobango, and Clickatell", Nikhil Pahwa, et al., MediaNama, 4 March 2011
  37. ↑ "Singham effect: File sharing sites blocked" Archived 8 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine, NDTV, "Singham v/s file sharing", Lindsay Pereira, Mid DAY, 22 July 2011
  38. ↑ "Blocking website in India: Reliance Communications shows it is very easy", Javed Anwer, Times of India, 24 December 2011
  39. ↑ "RCom shuts access to file-sharing sites", Shubhashish and Katya B Naidu, Business Standard (Mumbai), 27 December 2011
  40. ↑ "Welcome to India Ink". The New York Times. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2025.
  41. ↑ Timmons, Heather (5 December 2011). "India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen User Content". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  42. ↑ Timmons, Heather (6 December 2011). "Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  43. ↑ "Our right to freedom of speech and expression is under attack". India Opines. 9 March 2013. Archived from the original on 6 August 2013. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
  44. ↑ "Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google". The Times of India. 7 December 2011. Archived from the original on 13 December 2011.
  45. ↑ Basu, Moni. "Proposal to block harsh online criticism of leaders sparks anger in India". CNN. Retrieved 21 January 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  46. ↑ "Never asked for pre-screened content: Sibal to NDTV". NDTV. 9 December 2011. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  47. ↑ "Google India Transparency Report", Google India Transparency Report, Google India Transparency Report
  48. ↑ "Google India Transparency Report 2011". Google Transparency Report. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
  49. ↑ "India vows crackdown on offensive internet content". BBC News. 6 December 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
  50. ↑ "Internet giants meet Sibal, object to censorship". IBN. 15 December 2011. Archived from the original on 8 January 2012. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  51. ↑ Arora, Kim (7 January 2012). "Website blocked, cartoonist moves content to another host". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 10 January 2012. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
  52. ↑ "Democracy arrested in India: Aseem Trivedi continues his struggle against censorship". Art Leaks. 12 January 2012.
  53. ↑ "From Cyber India to Censor India: Groups challenge didactic govt". The Sunday Guardian. 29 April 2012. Archived from the original on 19 July 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  54. ↑ "Website blocked, cartoonist moves content to another host". The Times of India. 7 January 2012. Archived from the original on 10 January 2012.
  55. ↑ Rana, Preetika (4 January 2012). "Cartoonist Faces Ban on Right to Poke Fun". Wall Street Journal.
  56. ↑ "Why is this cartoonist caged?". The Hoot. 23 April 2012.
  57. ↑ Ribeiro, John (16 January 2012). "Delhi Court issues summons to Google, Facebook headquarters for objectionable content". PC World. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  58. ↑ Julka, Harsimran (17 January 2012). "Google, Facebook benefit from illegal content: Delhi High Court". The Economic Times. Mumbai. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  59. ↑ "Impossible to pre-screen content: Google, Facebook". Daily News and Analysis. New Delhi. 17 January 2012. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  60. ↑ Garg, Abhinav (19 January 2012). "Crackdown on Facebook challenged in high court". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 22 January 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  61. ↑ "Yahoo approaches Delhi High Court; notice to Delhi Police". The Economic Times. 20 January 2012. Archived from the original on 31 March 2014. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
  62. ↑ "Video sharing website Vimeo.com blocked in India". Rediff News. 4 May 2012. Retrieved 4 May 2012.
  63. ↑ "Reliance Communications Blocks The Pirate Bay & Vimeo". MediaNama. 3 May 2012. Retrieved 4 May 2012.
  64. ↑ "Anonymous hacks Indian sites to protest against Vimeo, others being blocked". NDTV.
  65. ↑ "Anonymous hacks into Reliance servers; prevents users from accessing Facebook, Twitter". NDTV Gadgets.
  66. ↑ "Anonymous hacks ISP to protest blocking of sites". DNA India.
  67. ↑ Patkar, Mihir (27 May 2012). "Hackers set June 9 deadline to unblock sites". The Times of India. Mumbai. Retrieved 28 May 2012.
  68. ↑ D'Monte, Leslie; Sheikh, Aminah (26 May 2012). "Anonymous hackers to attack from 9 June". Live Mint. Retrieved 28 May 2012.
  69. ↑ "Reliance Broadband hacked by Anonymous blocked sites list leaked". Aam Janata.
  70. ↑ Seshu, Geeta (16 June 2012). "Poor Guarantee of Online Freedom in India". Economic and Political Weekly.
  71. ↑ "Rajya Sabha to consider repealing Kapil Sibal's IT Rules". Rediff News. 19 April 2012.
  72. ↑ "Save Your Voice – A movement against Web censorship". DNA India. 13 May 2012.
  73. ↑ "Why is this cartoonist caged?". The Hoot. 23 April 2012.
  74. ↑ "No More John Doe Orders? Indian ISPs Get Court Order For Specificity In URL Blocks". MediaNama. 20 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  75. ↑ "ISPs get court relief, blocked websites may be history: Report". NDTV. 20 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  76. ↑ "No more blocking of entire websites?". Business Standard. 24 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  77. ↑ Pahwa, Nikhil (17 July 2012). "Domain Marketplace Sedo.co.uk Blocked In India". MediaNama. Retrieved 5 August 2012.
  78. ↑ Deepak Raj (7 July 2012). "BuyDomains.com Blocked in India for No Obvious Reason". TechBlogger.com. Archived from the original on 9 September 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  79. ↑ "Assam violence: Government sets 12-hour deadline for Twitter to remove hate pages", The Economic Times, 23 August 2012
  80. ↑ "Government blocks Twitter handles of journalists, right-wing groups – here is the proof", The Economic Times, 23 August 2012
  81. ↑ "Government asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond", The Economic Times, 23 August 2012
  82. ↑ "Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)", Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore), 22 August 2012
  83. 1 2 3 Thomas Philip, Joji (24 August 2012). "Government blocks Twitter handles of journalists, right-wing groups". The Economic Times. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
  84. ↑ "Internet Censorship in India", Americans for Freedom of Religious Expression (AFRE). Retrieved 29 August 2012
  85. ↑ "Indian Information Technology Minister Website hacked by Anonymous India". Hack Read. 30 November 2012.
  86. ↑ Kim Arora (13 December 2012). "BSNL website hacked by Anonymous India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 4 July 2013.
  87. ↑ Ellyne Phneah (14 December 2012). "Indian telco BSNL's Web site breached by Anonymous India". ZDNet.
  88. ↑ "Govt goes after porn, makes ISPs ban sites", Javed Anwer, Times News Network (TNN), Times of India, 26 June 2013
  89. ↑ "Order in Multi Screen Media Pvt Ltd vs. Sunit Signh and ORS …", High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CS(OS) 1860/2014, 23 June 2014. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  90. ↑ "219 websites blocked in India, after Sony complaint", Nikhil Pahwa, MediaNama, 7 July 2014. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  91. ↑ "No More John Doe Orders? Indian ISPs Get Court Order For Specificity In URL Blocks", Nikhil Pahwa, MediaNama, 20 June 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  92. 1 2 "Madras High court orders to shut down website that exposed 2G tapes", R Ramasubramanian, India Today, 28 February 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  93. ↑ "32 websites blocked in India after DoT circular". lex-warrier.in. 31 December 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  94. ↑ "Vaswani and the puritan league - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2 November 2018.
  95. ↑ Biswas, Soutik (17 August 2015). "The men waging war against pornography in India". BBC News.
  96. ↑ "List of porn sites provided to Kamlesh Vaswani (PIL petitioner) – Filternet parental control". Archived from the original on 12 June 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  97. ↑ "Porn Ban in India: Complete List of 857 Websites Blocked on DoT Order". IBTimes. 4 August 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  98. ↑ "Banned: Complete list of 857 porn websites blocked in India". Deccan Chronicle. 4 August 2015. Archived from the original on 4 August 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  99. ↑ "857 porn sites banned in India; Govt plans ombudsman for Net content". Financial Express. 3 August 2015. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  100. ↑ Naqvi, Muneeza (21 April 2012). "India orders telecoms to block more than 850 adult websites". Yahoo News Singapore. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
  101. ↑ "Government orders blocking of 857 pornographic websites – Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis". DNA India. 3 August 2015.
  102. ↑ Ghosh, Shauvik (4 August 2015). "Oops, Indian ISPs, telcos could lose 30-70% of data revenue because of porn ban". Mint.
  103. ↑ Majumder, Sanjoy (8 August 2015). "The twisting tale of India's porn ban". BBC News.
  104. ↑ "India's Continual Internet Shutdowns Have Cost Economy Nearly $1 Billion". Global Press Journal. 14 August 2018. Retrieved 21 June 2025.
  105. ↑ "Endorsing piracy akin to endorsing terrorism: Producer Ritesh Sidhwani". Financial Express. 24 August 2016. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  106. ↑ "Google, Microsoft, Yahoo Will Block Indian Gender-Selection Ads". Bloomberg.com. 19 September 2016. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
  107. ↑ "Internet search engines to block info on sex determination tests". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 19 September 2016. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
  108. ↑ Kelion, Leo (9 August 2017). "Bollywood blocks the Internet Archive". BBC News. Retrieved 20 November 2017.
  109. ↑ "Ban porn sites or lose license: High Court to ISPs". India Today. 28 September 2018. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
  110. ↑ "Websites blocked by MeitY in 2019". SFLC. 25 October 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  111. ↑ "Linking of Aadhaar with Social Media" (PDF). Lok Sabha. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  112. ↑ "Social media censorship in India has increased over five fold since 2016". QZ. 21 November 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  113. ↑ "Swami Ramdev & Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al" (PDF). Delhi High Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 November 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  114. ↑ Goel, Vindu (14 February 2019). "India Proposes Chinese-Style Internet Censorship". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  115. ↑ "Not just porn, Indian telecom firms are blocking other websites, too". QZ India. 11 February 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  116. ↑ Doval, Pankaj (30 June 2020). "TikTok, UC Browser among 59 Chinese apps blocked as threat to sovereignty". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 30 June 2020.
  117. 1 2 Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (29 June 2020). "India bans TikTok after Himalayan border clash with Chinese troops". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 29 June 2020.
  118. ↑ Abi-Habib, Maria (29 June 2020). "India Bans Nearly 60 Chinese Apps, Including TikTok and WeChat". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 13 November 2021.
  119. ↑ "India bans TikTok and dozens more Chinese apps". BBC News. 29 June 2020. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
  120. ↑ Zhong, Raymond; Schultz, Kai (30 June 2020). "With India's TikTok Ban, the World's Digital Walls Grow Higher". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
  121. ↑ "TikTok stars feel lost, but loss of revenue might push for a quick shift to rival platforms". The Indian Express.
  122. ↑ "Blocking China: Move against Chinese apps is welcome recognition that the contest with Beijing is multidimensional". The Times of India.
  123. ↑ "Access to 40 websites run by SFJ blocked in India: Centre". Tribune India. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  124. ↑ "Users report privacy first search engine DuckDuckGo not working in India". Live Mint. 2 July 2020. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  125. ↑ "EIA 2020: Modi Govt Blocks Website Campaigning Against Controversial Draft Green Law". HuffPost India. 15 July 2020. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  126. ↑ "Govt tells Twitter to block accounts inciting anti-India content using Kashmir". Hindustan Times. 12 August 2019.
  127. ↑ "Twitter concerned for staff in India after row over account removals". The Guardian. 9 February 2021. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
  128. ↑ Singh, Manish (10 February 2021). "Twitter suspends over 500 accounts in India after government warning". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 February 2021.
  129. ↑ Iyengar, Rishi (25 February 2021). "India imposes new rules on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube". CNN Business. Retrieved 22 March 2021.
  130. ↑ Gettleman, Jeffrey (24 April 2021). "As Covid-19 Devastates India, Deaths Go Undercounted". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2021.
  131. ↑ Singh, Manish (24 April 2021). "India orders Twitter to take down tweets critical of its coronavirus handling". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 24 April 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2021.
  132. ↑ Singh, Manish (21 May 2021). "India objects to 'manipulated' label on politicians tweets; asks removal of reference to 'Indian variant' of coronavirus". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 23 May 2021. Retrieved 26 May 2021.
  133. ↑ Singh, Manish (24 May 2021). "Police in India visited Twitter offices over 'manipulated media' label". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 24 May 2021. Retrieved 26 May 2021.
  134. ↑ Bhargava, Yuthika (24 May 2021). "Toolkit | Delhi Police officials visit Twitter office". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 24 May 2021. Retrieved 26 May 2021.
  135. ↑ "Twitter worry over 'freedom of expression' in India". BBC News. 27 May 2021. Archived from the original on 27 May 2021. Retrieved 27 May 2021.
  136. ↑ "Revealed: RTI Request uncovers MeitY letters to Twitter asking to remove the 'manipulated media' tag". Internet Freedom Foundation. 18 June 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  137. ↑ Singh, Manisha (17 June 2022). "Explainer: New VPN rules, why companies are upset and what they mean for you". The Times of India. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
  138. ↑ Singh, Manish (6 April 2023). "India to require Facebook and Twitter rely on gov't fact checking". TechCrunch. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
  139. ↑ "IT Ministry notifies body to flag 'fake' content about govt, PIB reference removed". The Indian Express. 6 April 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
  140. ↑ Khan, Khadija (10 July 2024). "Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 14 July 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
  141. ↑ "ANI files defamation suit against Wikipedia, seeks Rs 2 cr in damages". The Siasat Daily. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024. Retrieved 9 July 2024.
  142. ↑ "News agency ANI files Rs 2 crore defamation suit against Wikipedia in Delhi High Court". Deccan Herald. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024. Retrieved 9 July 2024.
  143. ↑ "Will ask government to block Wikipedia: Delhi High Court issues contempt order in ANI case". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 5 September 2024. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
  144. ↑ Kakkar, Shruti (5 September 2024). "Delhi HC pulls up Wikipedia for non-compliance of order". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 5 September 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  145. ↑ "Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order". The Hindu. 5 September 2024. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 14 September 2024. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
  146. ↑ Srivastava, Bhavini (21 October 2024). "Nothing worse than calling news agency a government stooge: Delhi High Court in ANI vs Wikipedia". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 21 October 2024.
  147. ↑ Deep, Aroon (21 October 2024). "Wikipedia suspends page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 November 2024.
  148. ↑ "Wikipedia v ANI: Why the online encyclopaedia has landed in legal trouble in India". BBC News. 30 October 2024. Retrieved 9 November 2024.
  149. ↑ Staff, T. N. M. (18 March 2025). "SC slams Delhi HC order directing Wikipedia to remove ANI defamation case page". The News Minute. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  150. ↑ "Supreme Court questions legality of Delhi HC's order directing removal of Wikipedia page on ANI defamation suit". The New Indian Express. 17 March 2025. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  151. ↑ Sharma, Aditya (19 March 2025). "ANI vs. Wikipedia Legal Battle Explained". thephilox.com. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  152. ↑ Roy, Debayan (9 May 2025). "Win for Wikipedia as Supreme Court quashes Delhi High Court's order to takedown page on ANI v Wiki case". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  153. ↑ Chaturvedi, Arpan (9 May 2025). "India Supreme Court reverses content takedown order against Wikipedia operator". Reuters.
  154. ↑ "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 10 May 2025.
  155. ↑ "Dawn Among 16 Pak YouTube Channels Banned In India, BBC Gets A Warning Too". www.ndtv.com. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  156. ↑ "India bans 16 Pakistani YouTube channels spreading misinformation after Pahalgam attack". Hindustan Times. 28 April 2025.
  157. ↑ "India blocks Chinese, Turkish news agencies from X – DW – 05/14/2025". dw.com. Retrieved 14 May 2025.
  158. ↑ "India tells X to block over 8,000 accounts". France 24. 8 May 2025. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  159. ↑ Mondal, Sanjukta (10 September 2025). "Indian court bans Sci-Hub, leaving some researchers worried". Chemistry World. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  160. ↑ Chawla, Dalmeet Singh (3 September 2025). "Researchers in India worry about access amid Sci-Hub ban". Chemical & Engineering News. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  161. ↑ "Delhi High Court orders Sci-Hub to be blocked in India". The Hindu. 23 August 2025. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  162. ↑ "India's new 3-hour deepfake removal rule: Experts urge strict compliance". The Indian Express. 12 February 2026. Retrieved 19 March 2026.
  163. ↑ Azdhan (31 March 2026). "MeitY Draft IT Rules Expand Govt Oversight of Content". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 31 March 2026.
  164. ↑ "IT Rules 2026: Draft norms tighten curbs on social media creators". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 31 March 2026.
  165. ↑ "Sound the Alarm : IFF's First Read on MeitY's Draft IT Rules Second Amendment, 2026". Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). 30 March 2026. Retrieved 31 March 2026.
  166. ↑ "IFF assists in three petitions before the Delhi High Court that challenged opaque Sahyog Portal blockings". Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). 5 May 2026. Retrieved 7 May 2026.
  167. ↑ Bansal, Aakriti (20 March 2026). "Government Withheld Multiple X Accounts Under Section 69A". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 20 March 2026.
  168. ↑ Deep, Aroon (19 March 2026). "Anti-establishment X accounts 'withheld' in India as takedowns spread". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 20 March 2026.
  169. ↑ Shakkarwar, Kaustubh (24 June 2026). "The Telegram ban order misses the tech-law nuance". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 1 July 2026.
  170. ↑ "India's Telegram Ban Was Temporary. The Power Behind It Is Not". Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). 25 June 2026. Retrieved 1 July 2026.
  171. ↑ "Telegram ban minimum that government could do: Delhi high court". The Times of India. 20 June 2026. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 1 July 2026.
  172. ↑ "To preserve freedoms online, amend the IT Act". Hindustan Times. 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  173. ↑ "Banned URLs: Here is the full list of the blocked websites". Zee News. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
  174. ↑ "Why India's order to block 857 websites might not work". Indian Express. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  175. ↑ M.N, Parth; Bengali, Shashank (5 August 2015). "India reverses ban on Internet porn after public outrage, ridicule". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  176. ↑ "Delhi High Ccourt wants 73 websites banned for streaming pirated videos". The Indian Express. 1 August 2016.
  177. ↑ "Delhi HC upholds blocking for pirate websites - Times of India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 30 December 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  178. ↑ "Lawyers beat up media reporters at Kerala High Court – Times of India". The Times of India. 19 July 2016.
  179. ↑ "No ban imposed on journalists in reporting court proceedings". Business Standard India. 30 July 2016.
  180. ↑ "You may get 3 years in jail, fine of 3 lakhs for viewing a torrent site in India – Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis". DNA India. 21 August 2016.
  181. ↑ "You may face 3 years jail term for viewing Torrent websites in India – Gadgets Now". Gadget Now. 22 August 2016.
  182. ↑ "Are you a criminal now? Users may get 3 years in jail for viewing torrent site, blocked URL in India". India Today. 21 August 2016. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  183. ↑ "Over 14000 Websites Blocked By MEITY". SFLC India. 7 January 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  184. ↑ "HC asks MEITY to consider hearing creator of blocked site". Internet Freedom Foundation. 29 March 2022. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  185. ↑ Singh, Manish (4 October 2022). "VLC-developer VideoLAN sends legal notice to Indian ministries over ban". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 November 2022.
  186. ↑ "VLC media player banned in India: 'Chinese connection' and three reasons why you should not be worried - Times of India". The Times of India. 17 August 2022. Retrieved 14 November 2022.
  187. ↑ Singh, Manish (14 November 2022). "India lifts download ban on VLC". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 November 2022.
  188. ↑ "Government Bans 59 mobile apps which are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order". Press Information Bureau. 29 June 2020. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  189. ↑ "App bans in India: Government overreach with no transparency". Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). 8 May 2026. Retrieved 9 May 2026.
  190. 1 2 Sharma, Sejal (25 March 2026). "652 apps blocked over security concerns, govt informs Lok Sabha". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 9 May 2026.
  191. ↑ "Government Bans 118 mobile apps which are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order". Press Information Bureau. 2 September 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  192. ↑ Yasir, Sameer; Kumar, Hari (2 September 2020). "India Bans 118 Chinese Apps as Indian Soldier Is Killed on Disputed Border". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 27 April 2022.
  193. ↑ "Govt blocks 14 mobile apps on terror suspicion". The Indian Express. 2 May 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  194. 1 2 Bhattacharya, Ananya (27 September 2024). "India shuts down the internet far more than any other country". Rest of World. Retrieved 29 September 2024.
  195. ↑ "The state of internet shutdowns". Access Now. 8 July 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  196. ↑ "Launching STOP: the #KeepItOn internet shutdown tracker". Access Now. 7 September 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  197. ↑ "The Anatomy of an Internet Blackout: Measuring the Economic Impact of Internet Shutdowns in India" (PDF). ICRIER. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  198. ↑ Chatterjee, Abhishek (5 January 2021). "Internet shutdowns in 2020 costs India $2.8 bn". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 3 February 2021.
  199. ↑ "The Global Cost of Internet Shutdowns". www.top10vpn.com. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  200. ↑ "Internet Shutdowns Tracker". Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  201. ↑ "#KeepItOn Data Dashboard". Access Now. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  202. ↑ Mukhopadhyay, Devdutta; Gupta, Apar (18 August 2020). "Jammu & Kashmir Internet Restrictions Cases: A Missed Opportunity to Redefine Fundamental Rights in the Digital Age". Rochester, NY. SSRN 4146203. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  203. ↑ "17 months on, 4G internet services restored in Jammu and Kashmir". Hindustan Times. 6 February 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
  204. ↑ "Kashmir group calls India's internet ban 'digital apartheid'". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
  205. ↑ "India shuts down internet to prevent Mirwaiz's address". Kashmir Media Service. Archived from the original on 16 February 2017. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  206. ↑ "Government orders social media ban in Kashmir". Kashmir Life. 26 April 2017. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
  207. ↑ Biddle, Sam. "Xanga Is Shutting Down". Gawker. Archived from the original on 13 May 2017. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
  208. ↑ "Rajasthan shuts Internet as 16 lakh appear for REET 2021". Indian express. Archived from the original on 16 November 2021. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
  209. ↑ "Internet suspended, section 144 imposed in four Rajasthan districts after violent protests". Hindusthan times. Archived from the original on 16 November 2021. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
  210. ↑ "Mobile internet suspended for RAS prelims exam across Rajasthan". Times of india. Archived from the original on 16 November 2021. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
  211. ↑ Gupta, Swati; Mogul, Rhea; Mitra, Esha; Stambaugh, Alex (29 June 2022). "Brutal killing caught on camera stokes India religious tensions". CNN.
  212. ↑ "Government can switch off your internet if necessary – The Economic Times". indiatimes.com. Archived from the original on 19 March 2011. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  213. ↑ "Vadodara tense, mobile data services suspended". hindustantimes.com. 27 September 2014. Archived from the original on 27 September 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  214. ↑ "Mobile internet facility suspended in violence-hit Vadodara". india.com. 28 September 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  215. ↑ "Internet services blocked in Vadodara after riots – Times of India". indiatimes.com. 28 September 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  216. ↑ "Internet services restored in Ahmedabad at midnight". The Indian Express. 31 August 2015. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
  217. ↑ "Nagaland Lynching: Internet and SMS Suspended As Protests Escalate, 18 Arrested". ndtv.com. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  218. ↑ "Dimapur lynching case: Internet, SMS services blocked in Nagaland". indiatimes.com. 8 March 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  219. ↑ "Nagaland:Internet services restored back to normalcy after 20 days!". The North East Today. 23 February 2017. Archived from the original on 25 February 2017. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
  220. ↑ "Blocking information". www.easternmirrornagaland.com. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
  221. ↑ "Nagaland legislators appeals tribal bodies to lift shutdown". The Financial Express. 11 February 2017. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
  222. ↑ "Govt blocks FB, WhatsApp". The Sangai Express. Retrieved 18 January 2017.[permanent dead link]
  223. ↑ "All three bills passed without debate; violent reactions erupt in Churachandpur". The Sangai Express. Archived from the original on 25 December 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  224. ↑ "मणिपुर में 2015 का इंटरनेट शटडाउन: तीन विधेयकों के बाद भड़के विरोध के बीच सरकार ने उठाया बड़ा कदम". Jago India Jago. 2026. Retrieved 12 March 2026.
  225. ↑ "Manipur lifts ban on broadband internet 'conditionally in liberalised manner'". India Today. 25 July 2023.
  226. ↑ "Longest internet shutdown in 2023 took place in Manipur amidst human rights violations: Report". The Hindu. 10 January 2024.
  227. ↑ "Mobile Internet blocked". Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 18 December 2016.
  228. ↑ "4 Manipur Police Personnel Killed, 4 Others Injured In Ambush". Ndtv.com. 15 December 2016. Retrieved 25 November 2017.
  229. ↑ "Manipur: Internet and SMS services banned for five days - InsideNE". InsideNE. 20 July 2018. Archived from the original on 5 February 2021. Retrieved 22 July 2018.
  230. ↑ "Manipur suspends cell Internet service". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 23 July 2018. Retrieved 22 July 2018.
  231. ↑ "Manipur suspends cell Internet service". The Telegraph Online. 21 July 2018. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
  232. ↑ "Mobile internet services suspended in Manipur for 5 days". ETTelecom.com. 21 July 2018. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
  233. ↑ "Internet shutdowns in Manipur and Rajasthan". 13 February 2019.
  234. ↑ "Citizenship Bill protests: Curfew imposed in Imphal, DM tells local channels don't show protests". 13 February 2019.
  235. ↑ "Internet banned over Kamjong tension :: Manipur News | Manipur Daily | Poknapham - Manipuri News!". www.thepeopleschronicle.in. Retrieved 17 March 2020.
  236. ↑ "Mobile internet shut, prohibitory orders imposed in Manipur". The Times of India. 16 March 2020. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
  237. ↑ "In Manipur, mobile internet suspended for 5 days amid law and order concerns". Hindustan Times. 7 August 2022.
  238. ↑ Telugu, ntv (25 May 2022). "Konaseema: అమలాపురంలో ఇంటర్నెట్ సేవలు బంద్‌." NTV (in Telugu). Retrieved 25 May 2022.
  239. ↑ "Andhra minister's house set ablaze amid protest against district's renaming | Top points". Hindustan Times. 24 May 2022. Retrieved 25 May 2022.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_India