This article is part of a special series. Read part one here.New Delhi: On Monday (February 23), independent journalist Anna M.M. Vetticad wrote on X that she had received an email from the social media platform notifying her that they had received a blocking order from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) citing Section 69A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. The notice was in connection with Vetticad’s X post on February 20, when she questioned the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s post calling the Indian Youth Congress’s protest at the AI Summit last week a “national shame”. She asked why a democratic protest is a matter of “shame” while attacks on Muslims and Dalits, or hate speech by government leaders, is not. It is unclear whether the blocking order for Vetticad’s post on X came via the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA)’s contentious Sahyog portal, as the social media platform has challenged the government’s use of the portal in court. Earlier this month, The Wire’s Instagram account was blocked for about two hours after the government found a 52-second satirical cartoon on the recent parliament impasse offensive. The impasse was triggered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to discuss questions about his government’s mismanagement of the 2020 border crisis with China.The takedown of Vetticad’s post and The Wire’s Instagram account blocking have once again brought attention to the vast, vague and indiscriminate powers being exercised by the Union government to block content online – even if all the posts do is raise legitimate questions. The Wire has now accessed the User Manual for Sahyog Portal (Authorised Agencies of States/UTs), that details to several levels of government how bulk takedown orders – rather than for single pages or URLs – can be issued at once. The manual even provides the option of uploading a First Information Report (FIR) if intermediaries do not comply with takedown requests from government authorities.The Sahyog portal has already left its mark on India’s digital landscape. Over 2,300 blocking orders were sent to 19 online platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, between October 2024 and October 2025, the Indian Express has reported using data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.§How does the government issue these takedown orders?Last week, The Wire had reported that the User Manual for Sahyog Portal (IT intermediaries), a never-made-public manual, makes it clear that orders are unilateral, and a direct correspondence between government agencies and intermediaries like social media platforms and telecom providers. The manual revealed that it excludes journalists or content creators from its definition of “stakeholders”. It does not detail any independent review process before an item is ordered to be taken down.The use of the Sahyog portal is especially problematic as it seeks to bypass the limited blocking powers contained in Section 69A of the IT Act, which in 2015 the Supreme Court upheld in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In contrast to Section 69A, the Sahyog portal allows takedown orders to be issued by central ministries, state governments and police, constituting an expansive censorship mechanism.Rolled out in October 2024, the MHA’s Sahyog portal was developed with the stated purpose of automating the process of central and state authorities, including police officers, sending notices to intermediaries, which carry content-removal directions under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021.The Sahyog portal has been developed by the MHA’s Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C). Before this, written orders stating reasons, notice to the affected party and review by a judicial committee were needed for blocking content. While the manual The Wire reported on earlier was for intermediaries, the one discussed here is for government agencies. This too has no mention of affected parties in its definition of stakeholders. This document also defines stakeholders of the Sahyog portal as the MHA, I4C, MeitY, DoT (Department of Telecommunications), ‘Authorised Agencies of Central Government’, ‘Authorised Agencies/Nodal officers of States/UTs’, and ‘Intermediaries’ who will “work in tandem to create a safe cyber space”. Option to use bulk upload for takedown ordersThis manual explains that government agencies can issue orders under the provisions of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act 2000. These notices are sent to intermediaries and a dropdown menu is provided, which includes platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram, Telegram, WhatsApp, YouTube and others.Authorised government agencies (Union or state government or police) are required to complete a form based on the following options:Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) or Rule 3(2)(b)Here, the manual shows, either a manual entry can be made or a bulk upload – which will provide for more than one URL/page of the website to be listed for takedown – can be chosen. Providing supporting evidence, on the other hand, is optional.Government agencies are required to “choose an appropriate option related to the URL/page of the website, provide the corresponding URL/page, and upload supporting evidence if available. In the ‘Reasons for Holding the Information Unlawful’ section, government agencies can select one or more applicable options. Agencies can add multiple reasons by using the option of ‘Save/Add More’,” the manual says.This implies that at one time, government authorities can issue multiple URLs or pages to be taken down, all in a single takedown order.Screenshots from the manual.Upload FIR in case of non-complianceThe manual says that an FIR can be uploaded on the Sahyog portal if the intermediary concerned does not respond to the takedown request issued within 48 hours.“The State Nodal Officer sends a request to the intermediary. If the intermediary does not respond within 36 hours, a show cause notice is issued. Twelve hours later, the option to upload an FIR becomes available. Once the intermediary takes action, the details will be visible in the inbox,” it says.The manual includes a list of 40 nodal officers including representatives of the MHA’s I4C, the Union ministries of defence, finance, heavy industries, rural development, information and broadcasting, and designated officers in each state and UT police.It is unclear how representatives of Union government ministries have been empowered to upload FIRs, a process which is undertaken for cognisable offences by the police only. Why a portal meant to issue takedown orders is entering into the police’s domain of FIRs by allowing such uploads also remains unanswered. Further, not all police complaints result in FIRs, yet the Sahyog portal manual appears to make FIRs generatable without real application of mind. This is a condition courts in India have always stressed upon before making a case against any party.On February 10, MeitY notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, that cuts down the takedown timelines for all content from 24-36 hours to three hours. The rules came into effect just late last week, on February 20. The shrinking of the timeline will likely put more pressure on the generation of FIRs.IT intermediaries have the option to seek additional information or evidence from authorised agencies and can raise requests for inability to comply with remarks mentioning the reasons for non-compliance. But this is subject to the authorised officer’s views. If the authorised officer agrees with the remarks of the intermediary, the request will be closed. But in case of a disagreement, the officer can provide further remarks and expect compliance.The ‘outbox’ section in the portal allows government officers to keep track of each action taken.“Both completed and pending actions will be displayed here,” the manual says.Takedown orders have come thick and fast since 2024.An RTI filed by SLFC.in revealed that a total of 179 requests were sent to intermediaries by the government or its agencies under the IT Act to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link through the Sahyog Portal from 2024 to 2025. Of this, 81 were sent to Telegram, 53 to YouTube, 27 to Google, nine to Apple, three to Amazon, and one each to Business Solutions, Oracle India, and the Public Domain Registry. All the notices were sent under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.While Sahyog has faced legal challenges, with X corp challenging the use of the portal, in September, the Karnataka high court dismissed X’s petition and called Sahyog “an instrument of public good” and said that it “stands as a beacon of cooperation” between citizens and social media intermediaries.