New Delhi: In 2025, in a podcast with US podcaster Lex Fridman, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said it was his “strong belief that criticism is the soul of democracy.” In 2018, while interacting with the Indian diaspora in London, Modi highlighted the importance of criticism in a democracy. “It is my conviction, I believe that the beauty of democracy is criticism. I believe the Modi government should be discussed. Only through criticism can democracy become vibrant. If anyone criticises me I consider it my good fortune,” he said. “If I stop listening, then how will I make up for my mistakes? Nor will my country prosper. This is why I always welcome criticism,” he added.In the last few weeks, the Modi government, however, has done just that. It has stopped listening and issued blanket takedown orders to muzzle content on social media that has been critical of the government by invoking the Information Technology Act, 2000. All the takedown orders have only one thing in common: criticism of either the government or Modi himself. From Facebook pages – of news platforms Molitics, National Dastak, satirist Rajeev Nigam – to posts on X by popular parody accounts @Nehr_who and @DrNimoYadav, several have faced orders to be withheld in India in response to a legal demand. A spate of takedown orders were issued last week, when Kerala Police cited “insult” to the Election Commission of India to take down posts on X on a poll guideline letter which bore the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seal. In the aftermath of the AI summit in Delhi last month, a slew of takedown orders were issued on posts that questioned the BJP’s post calling the Indian Youth Congress’s protest at the AI Summit a “national shame”. Also in February, The Wire’s Instagram account was blocked for about two hours after the government found a 52-second satirical cartoon offensive.On March 30, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to block news content on social media by users, influencers and content creators, in a move that has been described by advocacy groups as “digital authoritarianism.” The proposed amendments seek to strengthen a system that has been in the works for years, to consolidate in effect a digital censorship regime. But why have takedown orders come thick and fast in the last few weeks? And how has this legal censorship regime been put in place?Backlash on Indian foreign policy and Modi’s Vishwaguru imageAccording to Neeraj Jha, editor of Molitics, which had its Facebook page taken down on March 29, the Modi government’s high handedness in acting against social media content traces its origins to the BJP’s rise to power in 2014 when Modi became prime minister for the first time riding on a high voltage social media campaign which showed the party its reach and impact. The present crackdown, according to Jha, has its trigger in the criticism around the Modi government’s foreign policy, particularly in the aftermath of the US and Israel’s war on Iran.“The geopolitical situation has exposed our foreign policy, and the whole claim of the danka (drumbeats) around our foreign policy, has burst like a balloon with a pin in the hands of ordinary citizens on social media,” said Jha.Recent weeks have seen a proliferation of memes, reels and videos on social media centred around the Modi government’s response to the war in West Asia, which has led to shortage of cooking gas (LPG) cylinders in India, even as the government continues to maintain that there is no shortage of fuel. Several popular parody or news commentary accounts, including @Nehr_who, @DrNimoYadav, that were withheld on March 18 have been critical of the Union government over this, among other issues, in their posts, largely taking recourse to satire. For instance, a reel by comedian Pulkit Mani which parodied how Modi laughs and greets foreign leaders resulted in the video being taken down, but was subsequently widely shared by others and remains viral. Apparently this video is banned on Instagram.But this is a good example of: Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.Modi used the infamous IT cell to troll, insult, ridicule, character assassinate, hatemongering, etc.It was just a matter of time that things return home! pic.twitter.com/z4ig1V2qe2— Adheesh T (@Ad_Tel_210168) March 31, 2026That these takedowns are directly related to the government criticism was made clear on Monday when X said to the Delhi high court that the account of satirist ‘Dr Nimo Yadav’ was blocked on MeitY orders for portraying Modi in “bad taste”.The conflict in West Asia has punctured Modi’s carefully crafted image of “Vishwaguru” as the government remained silent on the US and Israel’s unilateral actions on Iran, did not issue a condolence message on Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death, maintained silence on US President Donald Trump’s statements “allowing” India to purchase Russian oil in the face of American tariffs, and provided no answers on the LPG crisis in the country in the aftermath of the war as queues grew around fuel stations.“In this whole scenario, the government is appearing clueless and is not being able to convince the public or even provide any answers,” said Jha.‘4pm News’ had its popular YouTube channel blocked on March 12 citing national security and public order, following an interview in which editor Sanjay Sharma questioned the Indian government’s policy on Iran despite it being a friendly nation.“The government thinks that public anger is rising on issues that affect their daily lives and this is reflected on social media. While mainstream media does not show this, social media has been showing people’s concerns and this is getting hugely popular. They are targeting such handles and channels which have a large following,” said Sharma.“First they took down my channel during the Pahalgam terror attack following which the Supreme Court intervened. Now again they have blocked my YouTube channel. The only reason is that they are scared.”Not just reels and news platforms, cartoons and satires have also been taken down in recent weeks that have questioned the government’s foreign policy.“Even posting a harmless ‘khee khee khee’ or ‘56inch chest’ or ‘Vishwaguru’ can get taken down,” said cartoonist Manjul.Manjul, who has been working as a political cartoonist for over three decades and has faced several takedown orders, said that the takedown orders appear as “insecurity in power”, “as a bunch of cowards behaving like kings and expecting obedience.”“One may argue that I have not seen the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975 but at least that was a declared Emergency during which civil liberties were suspended and criticism was restricted . Indira Gandhi was not claiming to be ‘mother of democracy’ and asking people to criticise the government. This is the real paradox,” he said.The chilling effect of these takedown orders has come through the legal provisions being used to enforce censorship on social media. “The bigger problem is the legal provisions being brought in now and precedents being set may have a lasting impact even after this government goes and a new one comes in,” said Manjul.Consolidating legal censorshipThe takedown orders on X and Meta have invoked in some cases Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which allows the government to block public access to online information in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity of India, national security, public order, maintaining friendly relations with foreign states, or for preventing the incitement of offences. In 2015 the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India upheld the constitutionality of Section 69-A.The contentious Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and Section 3(1)(d) of the IT rules, 2021 have been invoked in other cases. The former removes protection for intermediaries like X if they fail to remove or disable access to content after having been notified by a government agency. The latter mandates that online intermediaries remove or disable access to content within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge,” either via a court order or notification from an authorised government agency. Last month the time for intermediaries to effect takedowns was reduced to a mere three hours.According to Manu Sebastian, editor in chief of the legal news portal LiveLaw, the government has increasingly relied on Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, to compel intermediaries to remove content and though it was not conceived as an independent censorship mechanism in practice, it is now being used as one.“To circumvent the procedure under Section 69A, all these agencies have been increasingly using the Section 79 route. So this is basically like a back door blocking censorship mechanism,” he said.On Monday, proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, have expanded government’s control over online content, particularly news and current affairs, by bringing its oversight mechanism onto intermediaries as well as users who are not “publishers” but post or share news and current affairs content online.In 2024, the Ministry of home affairs (MHA) rolled out the Sahyog Portal which automate notices to intermediaries not just from state authorities but also police under these sections. The use of the portal to issue takedown orders by circumventing Section 69(A) of the IT Act – that specifically deals with blocking orders – has faced criticism, as has the opaque nature of an operation that allows government censorship.The Wire has reported how the Sahyog portal allows government censorship including bulk takedown orders and provides no explanation to the end user whose content has been taken down. There is no scope of independent review under Section 69A or Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. However, under Section 69A, requests for blocking online content could be made to the government, if found valid, then such a request would go to a committee of senior bureaucrats, while the platform putting out the content is notified and allowed to respond but there was no review provision either with challenges only allowed to be filed in court.“What the government has done over a period of time has been that it has been using the power it has to block websites, but it has also created an ability for itself to require social media platforms to take down content under a whole list of different provisions by executive notification. So, arguably this goes much beyond what the law itself permits it to do,” said Apar Gupta, advocate, and co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).“With the creation of the Sahyog portal, the number of people who are sending these notices has increased. With the latest proposed amendments it’s also bringing into its own ambit individual news commentators, the same way it had expanded and brought news platforms, within the regulatory ambit of the IT rules, and none of this can be done. A lot of this is pending litigation because the government’s powers are to regulate online intermediaries and a subset of that are social media platforms, but news publications should not be there and ordinary online internet users definitely should not be there.”While Sahyog has faced legal challenges, with X corp challenging the government’s use of the portal, the Karnataka high court dismissed X’s petition and called the portal “an instrument of public good”.“As of today that mechanism under Section 79 has been held to be constitutional, but the courts can test its execution, implementation, how it is being used, and whether it is being used proportionately, or is there any disproportionate use,” said Sebastian.Minister pins takedown surge on ‘deepfakes’On Tuesday, Union minister for information and broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw pinned the surge in takedown orders on the growing use of deepfake content on social media.“A huge quantity of deepfakes has started pouring into the social media world. It is a new menace and a new threat for the society,” he said and added that social media intermediaries have “almost doubled or tripled” their takedown actions in response to the rise in deepfakes.Gupta however said that the government is “testing its powers”.“I believe it’s testing its powers but it does have a central theme-takedowns are being done of people who are critical of the government or the prime minister,” he said.No reasons, only opacity of authoritarianismThat the takedown orders being sent, include no reasons, raises further questions about the opacity of the censorship mechanism being used.“This works because the government has interpreted its obligations to exercise blocking and take down powers in a way in which it does not need to provide any kind of natural justice to the creator of the account. So it doesn’t give any kind of show cause notice, which contains the grounds why the content or the account is being sought to be blocked or being taken down or withheld. It is not providing a hearing. It is first acting and then waiting for people who will then contact it based on a notification from platforms like X or Meta to reach back to the government, email them, and then the government may offer you a hearing if you provide them an ID. And even at that point you don’t know what you are going to that hearing for, what is alleged to be illegal in many ways. This is a filtration process in which many people may not be wanting to put themselves through,” said Gupta.That the target of these takedown orders have clearly been those accounts and content critical of the government and the prime minister himself also lays bare the selective application of these provisions. A student who attended the Jewar airport inauguration by Modi and filmed a video that said the arrangements were inadequate allegedly faced a take down order.“It is not just content creators, but also ordinary users,” said Sebastian. “On the other hand we see no action against accounts, posts and videos which are openly inciting hatred. There is a selective application and that is very evident.”With the proposed amendments to the IT Rules now being brought in after a limited consultation period of two weeks, and the already existing provisions being used to silence any critique through mass takedown orders, questions are being raised of the government consolidating a legal censorship regime.“Censorship can be legal. This is authoritarianism,” said Gupta.“We must not forget that the substantive basis of the censorship is not being explained. And quite often the content is, as we’ve seen, a video or a cartoon which is mocking the prime minister-which is the highest constitutional post, at least in terms of power which is vested in it-and thereby alongside that power comes the ability of citizens to mock and criticise it. So, I believe this is an act of digital authoritarianism.”