Meta blocks protest, political reels in India amid government scrutiny

Instagram has removed a series of posts and reels related to political protests in India, following reported discussions between Meta’s leadership and the Union government. The removals affect content from political leaders, party accounts, and ordinary users, raising questions about the balance between platform moderation and free expression.

Among those affected are posts by the Indian Youth Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das, and the news portal Scroll.in. Screenshots shared online indicate that some blocked posts carry references to the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

The government has been in talks with Meta about its recommendation algorithm, which officials say may amplify anti-establishment content. The discussions come after youth protests last month that culminated in the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. While Meta has not issued a public response, several reels with millions of views have been taken down. Some users on X have also reported reduced visibility of remaining protest-related content on Instagram.

Mr. Das of the CJP criticised the move. “What is this blanket ban on protest-related and Modi-related content?” he asked. “It is unconstitutional and illegal. It is absolutely ridiculous. We appeal to Meta to not succumb to such high-handed pressure from the government. Algorithms must moderate grossly illegal content, not police free expression. The entire point of free internet is this. Any social media platform doing this under pressure is going against free speech principles and public interest.”

Meta did not respond to requests for comment on the latest round of removals.

The takedowns are being carried out under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Unlike notices issued under Section 69A, these do not carry criminal liability. According to a report in The Hindu from April 25, Meta automatically complies with such requests, which critics say gives the government broad powers to censor content quickly.

Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society and a technology law consultant, had earlier told The Hindu that Meta’s automatic compliance was problematic. “Platforms are only in the dock if and when a particular piece of content is taken to court, which happens rarely,” he said. “Yet, instead of fighting for their users, Meta is unthinkingly removing content it is legally not even required to remove.”

The recent actions illustrate the scale of such removals. A viral clip featuring Students’ Federation of India activist Sakhi, which had been viewed over one crore times and showed her mocking police announcements at Jantar Mantar, has been taken down. On August 6, several Facebook posts by Mr. Kejriwal, including criticism of the government’s ethanol blending policy, were restricted.

Many Section 79(3)(b) requests are filed through the Home Ministry’s Sahyog portal. The Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC), in a statement on Thursday, said the portal “puts in place a parallel system to take down content online, without any of the safeguards present under Section 69A.” The group added that platforms’ moderation systems have a major influence, which “places a heightened responsibility on platforms to ensure that their moderation processes are transparent, consistently applied, and accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards, including notice, reasons for enforcement actions, and effective mechanisms for review.”

The situation highlights the ongoing tension between the Indian government’s efforts to regulate online content and the free speech expectations of users and civil society organisations. As the removals continue, debates over the transparency and accountability of content moderation are likely to persist.