MeitY officials, tasked with Section 69A blocks, recently confirmed a journalist's Instagram account was restricted under Section 79(3)(b). This effectively sidesteps the mandatory hearing and review process guaranteed by Section 69A. For content creators, this creates an opaque takedown mechanism with little recourse.
How We Got Here
The Supreme Court's 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment clearly separated Section 69A's committee-based blocking from Section 79(3)(b)'s platform immunity rules. New IT Rules amendments, effective November 2025, mandated specific URL intimations from senior officers and reduced platform response times from 36 hours.
The Numbers
- Journalist Ila Kazmi's Instagram account has been unavailable in India since September 9, 2026.
- MeitY's "Designated Officer, Section 69A Cell" confirmed the block, then directed Kazmi to an unnamed "concerned State department."
- The Karnataka High Court dismissed X Corp's challenge to the Sahyog portal in September 2025, though its appeal is still awaiting the Centre's response since March 2026.
- The October 22, 2025 amendment to IT Rules, 2021, mandated takedown intimations specify the "specific URL or identifier" and come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.
What Happens Next
🇮🇳 Why This Matters for India
For Bangalore's rapidly growing creator economy and Mumbai's digital media platforms, this ambiguity in content takedown processes creates significant legal uncertainty and operational risk.
The Take
The Ministry is deliberately blurring the lines between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, effectively stripping content creators of their due process. This creates an environment where takedowns can happen with little transparency or challenge, setting a worrying precedent.
Source:
MediaNama ↗