Why ‘disturbing public order’ dominates India’s content removal orders on X

Records filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) before the Delhi High Court show that since March 2024, it has issued 91 takedown notices to X, flagging over 1,100 URLs under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. 

Of these, 566 links were targeted for allegedly disrupting public order.

The data, compiled by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, reveals that only a small fraction of the notices related to clear criminal activity. Just 14 notices across a 20-month period alleged offences such as betting scams, impersonation linked to financial fraud, or child sexual abuse material.

Instead, much of the enforcement focused on speech-related concerns, including content aimed at political leaders and public figures. At least 124 URLs were flagged for targeting politicians, while others were accused of spreading misinformation or defamation.

The scale of intervention spiked during sensitive political moments. During the Lok Sabha elections in April and May 2024 alone, authorities flagged 761 URLs, including nearly 200 links accused of violating election laws. One single notice, issued on May 13, 2024, sought the removal of 115 URLs over an allegedly doctored video said to influence voters.

X has repeatedly objected to several of these orders, arguing that posts cited by the government did not violate the laws invoked. In some cases, the platform asked officials to reconsider takedown demands involving opposition party accounts and political commentary.

At the centre of the dispute is the legal route used by the government. The MHA has relied on Section 79(3)(b), which deals with intermediary liability, rather than Section 69A of the IT Act — the provision traditionally used for blocking online content on grounds such as national security or public order.

X argues that using Section 79(3)(b) widens the state’s power to remove content without the procedural safeguards built into Section 69A, including clearer thresholds and a more formal review process. The company has challenged the legality of the government’s Sahyog portal, which issues such notices, in the Karnataka High Court.

The government, for its part, says X has questioned both the authority of officials issuing notices and the classification of content as unlawful. In its court filings, the MHA maintains that the takedowns are necessary to prevent unrest, misinformation and threats to public order.

The pattern of notices also shows how broadly “public order” has been interpreted, covering everything from allegedly manipulated images of senior leaders to critical posts about government institutions. Critics say this blurs the line between preventing harm and suppressing dissent.

As the courts weigh X’s challenge, the figures underline a larger question facing India’s digital governance: where regulation ends and censorship begins — and who gets to draw that line in the world’s largest democracy.