Why in the News
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has asked Meta to review its “recommendation and content ranking mechanisms”, to avoid “disproportionate exposure of users to a single or limited set of narratives”. The request follows nearly 1.95 lakh blocking orders sent to Instagram, Facebook and YouTube between March and July. State pressure is extending from removing posts to shaping what users are shown.
What is the Sahyog portal, and how does blocking work through it?
- What it is: Sahyog is a portal through which Ministries, State governments and the police send takedown orders directly to platforms. It works like one counter where many offices file removal orders.
- Platform link: Most major platforms have connected to it. X has instead challenged its legality before the Supreme Court.
- Three hour deadline: Since February, platforms have had three hours to comply, which leaves no time to weigh a post.
- Scale of orders: Between March and July the orders came at one every 68 seconds, and Instagram alone received close to one lakh.
- The takeaway: Removal has become fast and frequent, and the user is not told who ordered it or why.
What do the cited cases show about how blocking is used?
- Reel on facial recognition: Journalist Ila Kazmi’s reel showed a Delhi Police van matching protesters’ faces in real time at Jantar Mantar. It became unavailable in India, and her account was later withheld.
- Error prone facial recognition: A news report found that at least 25 people the police had allegedly placed at the protest were in jail then, so the matching was wrong.
- Court scrutiny: In Ila Kazmi vs Union of India, the Delhi High Court on October 9 asked the Central government, Delhi Police and Meta to produce the orders behind both blocks.
Why is the algorithm now a target?
- Instagram as public square: Young people now educate, agitate and organise on Instagram. The Prime Minister is reported to have told his Cabinet to become more active on it.
- Party handle withheld: The X handle of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) was withheld in India within days of the party’s start, “in response to a legal demand”.
- Ranking instead of removal: A blocked post at least produces a notice to the user. A post that the ranking algorithm quietly pushes down the feed leaves nothing to challenge.
Does the law allow blocking without stated reasons?
- Karnataka High Court: It accepted that platforms are also used to do real harm. On September 24, 2025 it dismissed X Corp’s challenge and called Sahyog “far from being constitutional anathema”.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court upheld blocking powers because Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) requires written reasons, a hearing and a review.
- Missing safeguards: Instagram cited only “a legal request” to Ms. Kazmi. The notice named no agency, order or reference number.
- Unequal remedy: Meta restored a video of the Prime Minister it had pulled down, and apologised. A citizen receives neither a reason nor an apology.
Challenges
- Parallel legal route: Sahyog orders rest on Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which carries none of Section 69A’s hearing and review procedure.
- Opaque ranking systems: Ranking algorithms are proprietary, so a user cannot prove that a post was pushed down.
- Chilling effect: Police questioning over posts deters lawful reporting on protests. Eg. An Ahmedabad engineer was questioned over a protest video website.
Way Forward
- Publication of orders: MeitY and Meta should each publish every takedown order, or at least its issuer, date and grounds.
- Legal notices: Affected users should contest blocks in writing. Eg. Four reporters’ accounts were restored after legal notices to Meta.
- Disclosure of ranking requests: Any government request to alter content ranking should be made public.
Conclusion
Control over online speech is shifting from removing posts to influencing what platforms show, where no order exists to contest. The pending court challenges will decide whether a reasoned order must accompany every such restriction.
What is Freedom of Speech and Expression?
- About: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech to citizens. Article 19(2) permits only reasonable restrictions on the grounds it lists.
- Incitement test: The Shreya Singhal ruling struck down Section 66A of the IT Act. It protects discussion and advocacy, and allows curbs only on incitement with a close link to public disorder.
- Safe harbour: Section 79 of the IT Act shields platforms from liability for user posts, if they obey lawful takedown orders.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2013, GS2, 10 marks] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.”
