India Orders GitHub to Remove BitChat App, Citing Public Order Concerns
The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), operating under the Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a directive to GitHub on July 23, 2026, ordering the removal of repositories hosting BitChat, a Bluetooth mesh messaging application developed by Jack Dorsey, co-founder of X (formerly Twitter). The government stated that the app could be exploited to coordinate unlawful assemblies and circumvent restrictions imposed by authorities during situations involving public order.
The order comes amid repeated internet shutdowns near protest sites, which have led protesters to increasingly rely on Bluetooth-enabled messaging platforms such as BitChat for communication. BitChat is a decentralised peer-to-peer messaging application that operates over Bluetooth mesh networks, requiring no internet connection, servers, or phone numbers.
Unlike traditional messaging apps that depend on centralised infrastructure—which can be monitored, censored, or disabled—BitChat creates ad hoc communication networks using only devices in physical proximity. Each device acts as both a client and a server, automatically discovering peers and relaying messages across multiple hops to extend the network's reach. According to the platform, this approach provides censorship resistance, surveillance resistance, and infrastructure independence, remaining functional during internet outages, natural disasters, protests, or in regions with limited connectivity.
The directive, Notice No. 11072601011432, was issued at 11:16 p.m. on July 23, under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The order directs GitHub to disable access to three repositories, including the Android application and its release files, within three hours, warning that failure to comply could invite criminal prosecution.
According to the order, the application enables anonymous communication without mandatory user registration, phone number verification, or centralised logging of communications. It states that the application's technical architecture significantly impedes lawful interception, attribution, and investigation by law enforcement agencies. Since communications occur directly between nearby devices through a decentralised mesh network, the platform can be misused to evade lawful surveillance, facilitate anonymous coordination, and circumvent lawful restrictions imposed by competent authorities during situations involving public order, riots, terrorism, organised crime, or internet shutdowns.
The order further states that “such decentralised communication platforms are capable of being exploited for coordinating unlawful assemblies, violent protests, dissemination of misinformation, radicalisation, criminal conspiracies, and other activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, public order, and for facilitating the commission of cognisable offences.”
Legal experts note that Section 79(3)(b) provides that an intermediary may lose its safe harbour protection if, upon receiving actual knowledge or being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data, or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit an unlawful act, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material without vitiating the evidence. However, Section 79 itself does not confer a blocking power. Blocking directions are ordinarily issued under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009, which require a hearing and reasons recorded in writing, subject to review. Section 69A empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of public access to information on grounds such as national security, public order, and prevention of incitement.
The move has sparked debate about the balance between security concerns and the right to privacy and free speech. Experts emphasise the need for transparency and adherence to due process when issuing such directives.
