Alt News co-founder and factchecker Mohammed Zubair, who, days ago, shared a series of posts purportedly showing communal violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district during Ramnavami processions, said that X took down the posts after receiving a government order to block the content.
“Got an email from X saying that they received a blocking order from the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology citing Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, regarding my X account,” his post read.
X said it is legally required to withhold access under Section 69A of the new IT rules. The content will be withheld in India but available in other parts of the world.
“So, exposing the fake propaganda and false narrative set by the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) Minister and Official handles is not allowed now?”
The platform refused to share further details due to legal constraints and suggested Zubair can write to cyberlaw@meity.gov.in.
On March 27, Murshidabad’s Jangipur and Raghunathganj areas were marred with communal violence, stone-pelting, vandalism and arson when local Muslims objected to the loud DJ music while the Friday prayers were being offered. These are predominantly Muslim areas.
Following the incident, 30 people were arrested and Section 144, prohibiting assembly, was imposed.
Assembly elections are due in West Bengal on April 23 and 29.
Is Section 79 (3)(b) new armour for silencing dissent?
According to a report by The Hindu citing data from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, on average, 290 such notices are issued every day.
Last year, 1,11,185 suspicious online contents were blocked under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
Under Section 79 (3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Centre can send notices to social media platforms to take down content that it deems “unlawful” or “suspicious.” Once the government order is received, social media platforms should remove the content within three hours.
This is after Section 79(1) of the IT Act protects online platforms from legal liability posted by the users.
In 2025, X filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court, calling out Sahyog, a centralised portal launched by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to register complaints against unlawful online content, as a “censorship portal.”
“MeitY (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of India) is trying to do indirectly through other agencies what it cannot do directly under Section 69A… MeitY’s actions are also colourable exercises of power because it has attempted to delegate power to Central and State agencies, and countless local police officers, that MeitY itself does not have under the IT Act,” the petition said.
The government argued that the Sahyog portal “helps achieve a clean cyber space” and X is “falsely alleging that authorities are passing information blocking orders.”
Section 79 (3)(b) is not blocking content but “notifying” platforms of harmful content and, if ignored, they could face legal consequences.
“In case of non-compliance of the notices, the result is lifting of safe harbour protection and consequent action under extant law as per Rule 7 of IT Rules, 2001, and the same is fundamentally at a different plane altogether,” the Centre’s reply said.
“The petition is simply trying to mislead the court.”
X’s petition was turned down.
