Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom
IFF's Statement on web censorship accompanying the elections results in Tamil Nadu and swearing in of C. Joseph Vijay
Recent reports around C. Joseph Vijay’s swearing in as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister point to a familiar problem in India’s web censorship architecture where political speech is being restricted through a mix of formal takedown notices, opaque platform enforcement, and disputed claims of government involvement. Here, the regulatory framework for this has been created by the Union Government acting through the Ministry of Electronics and IT which has continued to amend and expand censorship powers under the IT Rules, 2021.
On May 8, 2026, a notice was issued by the Tamil Nadu Police Cyber Crime Wing to X Corp, directing the removal or blocking of 18 URLs within three hours. The earliest accessible press report we found is PTI’s copy carried by The Print on May 10 at 8:49 PM IST, which states that the notice invoked Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, and described the posts as “unlawful”, “provocative” and capable of disturbing public order.
This sits alongside two related platform incidents. First, Rahul Gandhi’s Instagram reel and photo post featuring Vijay’s swearing in were reportedly blocked or restricted after going viral. The earliest publicly accessible report alleging such restriction appears to be Congress leader Srivatsa’s X post of May 10, which was embedded or quoted by The Week, PTI/Daily Pioneer, ANI, and IANS. These reports also record MeitY’s denial, with government sources attributing the restriction to Instagram’s internal systems mistakenly flagging the post. While the post was later restored, the brief restriction impeded its reach and virality. Second, the official X handle of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) was reportedly suspended shortly after a purported post supporting TVK’s coalition bid. X permanently or temporarily suspended the official VCK handle, displaying the standard notice that the account “violated X rules.” No further public explanation was provided by X.
Taken together, these incidents show how web censorship now operates through a blurred chain of responsibility. Sometimes a public authority or state government acts directly, as with the Tamil Nadu Police notice to X. Sometimes platforms restrict content while users are left with vague references to “legal requirements” or the IT Rules. The result is the same that 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. Such abrupt and arbitrary restrictions also interfere with uncovering an accurate timeline or record of historical events, like assembly elections.
IFF emphasises that legality and process cannot be afterthoughts. Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 requires “actual knowledge” through a court order or notification by the appropriate government or its agency under Section 79(3)(b). In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court read Section 79(3)(b) narrowly and held that such court orders or government notifications must conform to Article 19(2). IFF calls on all public authorities and platforms to disclose the legal notices, affected URLs, issuing authorities, timelines of restriction and restoration, and remedies available to affected users.
We also call on social media companies to do better since 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.
Internet Freedom Foundation
May 11, 2026
Delhi
