The Centre issued nearly 1.95 lakh directions to restrict or remove online content from Instagram, Facebook and YouTube between March and July this year, averaging roughly 1,275 orders a day, according to a report by The Indian Express. That translates to approximately one blocking direction every 68 seconds.
The scale of the orders highlights the growing use of government mechanisms to regulate content on major social media platforms. The directions were issued through the Sahyog portal, primarily by various central and state government agencies.
Stay Connected · Headline8
Get breaking news instantly — follow our official channels
Instagram received the highest number of orders
Among the three major platforms, Instagram emerged as the most targeted, receiving nearly 1 lakh blocking directions during the five-month period. Facebook followed with around 80,000 orders, while YouTube received nearly 15,000.
However, a single blocking direction does not necessarily correspond to one post or account. Each order can cover hundreds of individual pieces of content or multiple accounts, making the overall volume of content affected potentially much larger.
Student protests among content targeted
The period covered by the data coincided with student protests at Jantar Mantar in Delhi over alleged examination paper leaks. The protests began in early June and continued until July 25, when then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned.
According to the report a senior government official cited in the report said a considerable share of the blocking directions were issued as the protests gained momentum, particularly on Instagram. Users also reported that posts supporting the student movement were being removed.
The content flagged by authorities extended beyond the protests. Posts criticising the government’s ethanol fuel-blending policy, material connected to the West Bengal Assembly elections, and deepfake or synthetic media were also among the categories of content targeted.
Political speech was another area of concern, with the national convenor of a political party claiming that some of his Instagram posts had been blocked in India.
Why the shift from Section 69A to Section 79(3)(b) matters
The increasing reliance on Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act has also raised questions about how government directions are being implemented.
Section 69A has traditionally been associated with formal government orders for blocking public access to online information, while Section 79 deals with the legal framework governing intermediary liability. The growing use of Section 79(3)(b), alongside the government’s Sahyog mechanism, has therefore become a significant point of discussion around platform compliance and intermediary responsibilities.
Digital rights advocates have questioned whether the evolving system gives platforms sufficient opportunity to assess the legality of individual requests before taking down content.
Automation speeds up content removal
The government’s requirement for platforms to act within a short timeframe has also prompted changes in how companies process blocking requests.
Meta has integrated its API with the Sahyog portal, allowing flagged content to be processed automatically. This can enable removals without individual human review in every case.
Digital rights activists have raised concerns about the implications of such automation, particularly whether platforms are effectively moving towards automatic compliance instead of independently assessing government directions.
Apar Gupta of the Internet Freedom Foundation has criticised the system, arguing that it could transform conditional legal obligations into a form of unconditional compliance.
Faster takedown timelines
The volume of orders comes amid tighter timelines for social media companies to act on government directions.
According to industry insiders cited in the report, recent amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 have pushed platforms towards faster compliance with government blocking requests.
The applicable response window has reportedly been reduced from the earlier 24–36 hours to around 2–3 hours, putting greater pressure on platforms to process and act on government directions rapidly.
Meta’s user notification policy under scrutiny
Meta’s approach to notifying users about government-ordered restrictions has also drawn attention in India.
The company generally informs users when content restrictions are imposed following requests from state authorities. However, in India, Meta does not follow the same notification practice, citing legal obligations and regulatory considerations.
The developments have intensified the broader debate over the balance between online safety, government regulation, platform accountability and freedom of expression.
With nearly 1.95 lakh blocking directions issued in just five months, the scale of government intervention has placed renewed focus on how social media platforms respond to official takedown requests—and whether increasingly automated compliance could affect users’ access to political and public-interest content.
(Inputs from Indian Express)
