The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has raised concerns over what it described as a growing pattern of 'shadow censorship' following reported restrictions on social media content linked to the Tamil Nadu election results and the swearing-in of C Joseph Vijay as chief minister.
In
a statement, the digital rights organisation says recent incidents involving content takedowns, account suspensions and temporary restrictions on political posts highlighted broader concerns about India’s web censorship architecture and the expanding powers under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
According to IFF, a notice dated 8 May 2026 was issued by the Tamil Nadu police cybercrime wing to X, directing the removal or blocking of 18 URLs within three hours.
The organisation says the earliest accessible media report regarding the notice appeared in a PTI report carried by The Print on 10th May. The report stated that the notice invoked Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and provisions of the IT Rules, 2021, describing the posts as 'unlawful', 'provocative' and capable of disturbing public order.
IFF also referred to reported restrictions on a social media post by Rahul Gandhi featuring Mr Vijay’s swearing-in ceremony.
According to the statement, an Instagram reel and photo post shared by Mr Gandhi were allegedly blocked or restricted after going viral. IFF says the earliest publicly accessible reference to the alleged restriction appeared in an X post by Congress leader Srivatsa which was subsequently cited by media organisations including The Week, ANI, IANS and Daily Pioneer.
The reports also quoted government sources denying involvement by the Union ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY), attributing the temporary restriction to Instagram’s automated moderation systems mistakenly flagging the content.
IFF noted that although the content was later restored, the temporary restriction affected its reach and virality during a politically significant moment.
The organisation further referred to the suspension of the official X account of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) shortly after a purported post supporting TVK’s coalition bid.
According to IFF, the account was suspended with X displaying a standard notice stating that the handle had 'violated X rules', without providing additional public explanation.
“Taken together, these incidents show how web censorship now operates through a blurred chain of responsibility,” the statement says.
IFF argued that in some cases, public authorities directly issue blocking notices, while in others, platforms restrict content citing vague 'legal requirements' or automated enforcement mechanisms.
“The result is the same — political speech is interrupted at moments of democratic significance, while the public is left without clear information on who ordered the restriction, under what law, and with what remedy,” the organisation says.
The digital rights group also argued that abrupt restrictions interfere with maintaining an accurate historical record of events such as elections and political transitions.
IFF cited Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, which requires 'actual knowledge' through a court order or government notification under Section 79(3)(b) before intermediary action is taken.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, IFF says the apex court had interpreted Section 79(3)(b) narrowly and held that government notifications or court orders must conform to constitutional free speech protections under Article 19(2).
The organisation called upon public authorities and social media platforms to disclose legal notices, affected URLs, timelines of restrictions and restoration, issuing authorities and available remedies for affected users.
IFF also urged social media companies to improve transparency and accountability in automated moderation practices.
“Automating content moderation on the basis of laws and rules cannot become a shield for arbitrary restriction and the IT Rules, 2021 cannot be allowed to function as a shadow censorship system in which political speech disappears first and explanations arrive later, if at all,” the organisation says.
