Internet Censorship in India: A Threat to Online Freedom

India has been grappling with the issue of internet censorship, which has significant implications for online freedom. The Indian government has been using various methods to control online content, including blocking websites and social media platforms.

The government's actions have been criticized for being overly broad and infringing on citizens' right to free speech. This has led to concerns about the erosion of online freedom in India.

The Indian government has claimed that internet censorship is necessary to maintain national security and public order. However, this claim has been disputed by many experts and civil liberties groups.

According to a report, the Indian government has blocked over 1,000 websites in the past few years, including those of news organizations, social media platforms, and online services.

For your interest: Declaration of Internet Freedom

In 2015, the Indian government blocked 857 pornographic sites under section 79 3(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but lifted the ban just four days later due to significant internet traffic and revenue loss for telecom companies.

The ban was ordered by the Department of Telecom on July 31, 2015, and a copy of the order was made available through media websites. People also criticized the law enforcement under section 67 of the IT Act 2000.

In 2017, the Madras High Court ordered the Internet Archive to be blocked in India due to copyright-infringing copies of films being disseminated through the service. This was following complaints from film studios.

The Indian government also proposed new rules in 2017 that would give officials the power to demand social media platforms like Facebook and Google to remove posts or videos deemed unlawful or invasive of privacy. This was in addition to tracing messages to their original senders.

In 2018, the government directed Internet service providers to block 827 websites hosting pornographic content following an order by the Uttarakhand High Court. This effectively reinstated the previously rescinded 2015 porn ban.

Explore further: Broad Band Internet Service Provider India Classification

In 2019, the Indian government continued to exert control over online content. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued blocking orders for 20 websites in response to an RTI query filed by SFLC India.

The Ministry also ordered social media platforms to take down 3433 URLs under Section 69A of India's Information Technology Act. This move was part of a broader effort to regulate online content and curb the spread of "unlawful" or "invasion of privacy" content.

Indian officials could now demand that Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok, WhatsApp, and others remove posts or videos deemed unlawful or invasive of privacy. This new power was proposed under new rules that aimed to give the government more control over online content.

Over 130 complaints were filed around the country about blocked access to VPN and proxy sites. This was not an isolated incident, as reports of platforms like Telegram, Reddit, and SoundCloud being inaccessible also surfaced.

The Department of Telecom (DoT) remained non-transparent about the blockings, sparking concerns about the government's handling of online censorship.

Curious to learn more? Check out: Communications in Papua New Guinea

In 2016, the government in Indian-administered Kashmir shut down the internet for five months following the death of Burhan Wani and ensuing protests.

The Indian government took drastic measures to control the situation, showing just how far they're willing to go to maintain order.

In August 2016, Bollywood studios launched a public education campaign to raise awareness about the impact of piracy on terrorism, highlighting the connection between black money and terrorist funding.

Piracy losses were reportedly high, and the studios were trying to make a point about the consequences of their actions.

In September 2016, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! agreed to censor search results related to prenatal sex discernment in order to comply with the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

India's Internet Freedom Status is "Partly Free" according to Freedom House's Freedom on the Net report. This status has remained unchanged since 2009.

The report gives India a rating of 50 out of 100, with a significant increase from 41 in 2017. This indicates a decline in Internet freedom in India.

India ranks 37th out of 70 countries rated in the report, with a score of 50 on a scale from 0 to 100.

The report also highlights that India's Obstacles to Access was rated 14, Limits on Content was 19, and Violations of User Rights was 17.

Here's a breakdown of the scores:

These scores indicate that India has made little progress in improving Internet freedom since 2017.

India has a complex internet censorship landscape, with the government exerting significant control over online content.

The government has used various methods to block websites, including filtering internet addresses and teaching people how to use the internet properly.

In 2000, the Indian government passed the Information Technology Act, which made it illegal to post offensive things online.

The government has also given itself more power to block websites and punish people for sending mean messages, thanks to changes made to the law in 2008.

Internet companies may be required to block websites if the government deems it necessary for national security.

A special group was formed in 2001 to handle online crimes and inappropriate websites, and another group called CERT-IN was created in 2003 to ensure the internet in India is safe.

If CERT-IN says a website should be blocked, all internet companies in India must comply.

Here's a list of some of the key laws and policies related to internet censorship in India:

The Indian government has also been criticized for its internet shutdowns, particularly in the region of Jammu and Kashmir.

In August 2012, the Government of India ordered over 300 specific URLs blocked for allegedly containing inflammatory content related to the Assam violence.

This move raised questions about freedom of speech in the largest democracy in the world, sparking debates about censorship and its implications.

The blocked URLs included popular websites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia, as well as news outlets like The Times of India and Al-jazeera.

The Economic Times described this level of censorship as unprecedented in India, highlighting the government's attempt to silence online voices.

The government also blocked the Twitter accounts of two Delhi-based journalists, Kanchan Gupta and Shiv Aroor, and Pravin Togadia, further restricting online discourse.

In response to these actions, a petition was created by the Indian diaspora in the US to oppose Internet censorship in India.

On a separate note, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's (BSNL) website was hacked by Anonymous India on 13 December 2012, in protest against section 66A of the IT Act.

The hackers defaced the website with a picture supporting cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and Alok Dixit, who were on a hunger strike to protest against Section 66A.

Expand your knowledge: Can an Employer Use Private Text Messages against You

Internet shutdowns have become a common practice in India, with 771 shutdowns imposed between 2016 and 2023, according to Access Now. This is higher than all other countries combined.

The reasons for these shutdowns are varied, ranging from protests and political unrest to elections and exams. The government has used internet shutdowns to throttle dissent and mass-public gatherings.

The cost of these shutdowns is substantial, with the Indian economy losing approximately $3.04 billion between 2012 and 2017, according to the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). In 2020, internet shutdowns caused $2.8 billion of damage to India's economy, harming businesses, teaching, and healthcare.

Here are the instances of internet shutdowns in India from 2012 to 2024:

India has the highest number of internet shutdowns in the world, with 771 shutdowns imposed between 2016 and 2023, according to Access Now. This is a staggering number, and one that highlights the extent to which internet shutdowns are a problem in India.

The reasons for these shutdowns are varied, but they often involve protests, political unrest, elections, and exams. In some cases, internet shutdowns have been used to throttle dissent and mass-public gatherings.

The cost of internet shutdowns in India is significant, with the think tank ICRIER estimating that the 16,315 hours of internet shutdown between 2012 and 2017 cost the Indian economy approximately $3.04 billion.

Here is a breakdown of the number of internet shutdowns in India from 2012 to 2024:

The majority of shutdowns were imposed on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and later the union territory of the same name, which experienced the world's longest recorded internet shutdown of 552 days during the 2019-2021 lockdown.

In May 2012, Reliance DNS servers were compromised by Anonymous India, a branch of the hacktivist group Anonymous.

The hack was a protest against the blocking of Vimeo, The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, and other torrent sites by Reliance Communications, citing a court order.

Reliance Communications stated that it simply followed a court order, but Anonymous disputed this, releasing a list of websites that had been blocked without government orders.

The hack prevented direct access to Twitter, Facebook, and many other websites in India on 26 May 2012.

Anonymous warned the Government to restore all the blocked websites by 9 June 2012, and planned a nationwide protest on the same date.

This incident raises questions about private and unaccountable censorship by telecom providers.

The Indian government has taken steps to regulate online content. In June 2013, the Department of Telecommunications directed ISPs to block 39 websites, mostly web forums and image hosts, without specifying a reason or law.

The government has also adopted the "IT Rules 2011" as a supplement to the 2000 Information Technology Act. This requires Internet companies to remove objectionable content within 36 hours of being notified by the authorities.

Cybercafé owners are also subject to certain regulations, including photographing customers, following specific setup instructions, and keeping client IDs and browsing histories for a year.

In June 2013, the Department of Telecommunications directed Indian ISPs to block 39 websites.

The order didn't specify a reason or law under which the websites were blocked, leaving many questions unanswered.

Most of the blocked websites are web forums where users share images and URLs to pornographic files, but some are also image and file hosts used for non-pornographic files.

The blocked websites are hosted outside India and claim to operate under the U.S. rule that requires performers to be over 18 years of age.

Watching or distributing child pornography is illegal in India, but watching adult pornography is not.

This move sparked concerns about internet freedom and censorship in India.

In June 2013, the Department of Telecommunications directed ISPs to block 39 websites without specifying a reason or law.

The blocked websites included most web forums where users shared images and URLs to pornographic files, but some were also image and file hosts used for non-pornographic files.

As of May 2012, Reliance Communications allegedly blocked websites like Vimeo and The Pirate Bay on orders from the Department of Telecom without prior warnings or stated reasons.

The Information Technology (Inter-mediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, were the subject of an annulment motion in Parliament, moved by MP P. Rajeev of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which aimed to review the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The motion was not carried, but the discussion highlighted concerns among parliamentarians about the "draconian" provisions of the IT Act.

Check this out: Digital Services Act

The IT Rules 2011 were adopted in April 2011 as a supplement to the 2000 Information Technology Act.

Internet companies are required to remove objectionable content within 36 hours of being notified by authorities, if it's deemed defamatory, hateful, harmful to minors, or infringes copyright.

Cybercafé owners must photograph their customers, follow specific setup instructions, keep client IDs and browsing histories for a year, and forward this data to the government monthly.

This means that internet companies and cybercafé owners have to be very vigilant and proactive in monitoring and reporting content that doesn't meet these standards.

The IT Rules 2011 aim to regulate online content and ensure that it's safe and respectful for all users.

For another approach, see: Internet Shopping Companies

Public outrage played a significant role in the withdrawal of the Broadcasting Bill. A press conference held by Digipub, India's largest association of digital news organizations and journalists, on August 8, was a key moment in this effort.

The bill's provisions were deemed unfeasible by prominent journalist Ravish Kumar, who warned that it would lead to self-censorship and create an atmosphere of fear among journalists. This fear was palpable, as creators like Shamita Yadav expressed concerns that the bill would discourage people from producing content.

The hashtag #killthebill was used on social media to mobilize opposition to the bill, while #contentbacho (save the content) and #Stopbroadcastingbill were also used to raise awareness about the issue. These online efforts helped to galvanize public opinion against the bill.

In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the government has shut down the internet multiple times, including in 2019, 2014, and 2016, as part of curfews and complete communications blackouts.

The state government of Jammu and Kashmir has blocked access to 22 social networking websites for one month in 2017, citing "endangering public life and property and causing unrest/disharmony in the state".

Internet services were suspended in 4 districts of Rajasthan in October 2021, following violent protests. Internet was also suspended across Rajasthan in view of the Rajasthan Administrative services exam, in October 2021.

India has been added to the list of "countries under surveillance" by Reporters Without Borders since March 2012. This designation is a result of the country's stepped-up internet surveillance and pressure on technical service providers.

The Indian authorities have been using various methods to control online content, including blocking websites and punishing individuals for posting offensive messages. In 2008, changes to the Information Technology Act gave the government more power to block websites and punish people for sending mean messages.

The government has also created special groups to handle online crimes and inappropriate websites, such as the Information Technology Act's provision for a special group to handle problems like online crimes and inappropriate websites. This group was created in 2001.

CERT-IN, a group created in 2003, is responsible for ensuring the safety of the internet in India. If CERT-IN says a website should be blocked, all internet companies in India have to do it. This has led to the blocking of various websites, including file sharing and file hosting sites, such as The Pirate Bay and Google Docs.

For more insights, see: Blocking of YouTube Videos in Germany

The Delhi High Court ordered the blocking of 472 file sharing and file hosting websites in 2014, but later reduced the number to 219. The government has also been known to shut down internet services in certain regions, such as Jammu and Kashmir, where internet services were shut down for over a year in 2019.

Here's a list of some of the countries and regions that have been under surveillance by Reporters Without Borders:

Note: This list only includes the country that has been mentioned in the article section facts.

Manipur is a state in northeastern India where the Indian government has been accused of censoring social media to suppress dissenting voices.

The state has a history of protests and unrest, particularly among the Meitei community, who have been using social media to express their grievances.

In 2020, the government of India imposed a three-month internet shutdown in Manipur, citing concerns over law and order.

This shutdown had a devastating impact on the local economy, with businesses and schools suffering greatly.

The government has also been accused of restricting access to online content, particularly news articles and social media posts that are critical of the government.

Jammu and Kashmir has been a hotspot for internet censorship, with the state government shutting down internet services multiple times. The first instance was in March 2014, when the government shut down the internet to prevent separatists from addressing a United Nations Human Rights Council sideline event via video link in Geneva.

Internet access was also shut down again in July 2016 against the backdrop of protests. The government claimed that the internet was being used to spread unrest and disharmony in the state.

In 2017, the state government ordered internet service providers to block access to 22 social networking websites, including Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, for a month. The government claimed that these websites were endangering public life and property.

The banned services also included websites like QQ, Baidu, and Qzone, which are not used outside of mainland China. This has raised concerns that the censorship is an attempt to suppress dissent.

Many students were affected by the slow internet speed, which made it difficult for them to study properly during online classes. Broadband services were restored in March 2020, but mobile internet remained at 2G speed until February 2021.

The government's actions have been criticized by a local human rights group, who term the blockade as "digital apartheid". The group argues that the frequent internet shutdowns have a disproportionate impact on the local population.

The following communication apps were banned in India in May 2023:

Gujarat has experienced internet shutdowns due to various reasons. One such instance was in Vadodara, Gujarat, where the internet was shut down for 3 days in September 2014 due to communal clashes between two communities.

The State Government of Gujarat also restricted internet services during the Patidar reservation agitation in August 2015, blocking certain social media platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook for six days.

Internet shutdowns have been a recurring issue in Gujarat, with the State Government invoking powers it doesn't actually have under the Information Technology Act, 2000. No formal announcement was made regarding the shutdown in 2014.

The restrictions during the Patidar agitation were aimed at preventing the spread of misinformation and maintaining public order. However, the move was widely criticized for its impact on freedom of speech and expression.

Here's a summary of internet shutdowns in Gujarat:

In 2011, a nationwide anti-corruption movement in India was met with a surprising challenge: a ban on cartoons criticizing corruption.

Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist, joined the movement and launched a cartoon-based campaign called Cartoons Against Corruption to support the cause.

The website www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com was suspended by the Crime Branch, Mumbai, after receiving a complaint from a Mumbai-based advocate and Congress leader, R.P. Pandey.

The complaint claimed that the cartoons displayed on the website were "defamatory and derogatory" and were created at the instance of Anna Hazare, the leader of the anti-corruption movement.

The suspension of the website was a significant setback for Trivedi, who quickly created a blog to upload his cartoons.

The cartoons in question targeted corrupt politicians and systems in India, sparking a heated debate about censorship and free speech.

The Delhi High Court has ordered the blocking of 472 file sharing and file hosting websites, including The Pirate Bay and Google Docs, in 2014. This move was made at the request of Sony Entertainment.

In contrast, the Madras High Court had previously blocked only URLs referencing web pages with illegal content, not entire websites. The updated court order blocks just 219 sites.

The Indian government has also ordered social media platforms to take down 3433 URLs, under Section 69A of India's Information Technology Act. This move aims to block users and posts across social media platforms.

In 2014, a judge blocked the entire website www.savukku.net, which had exposed sensitive information, including conversations between a DMK MP and a former police officer.

In June 2014, the Delhi High Court ordered the blocking of 472 file sharing and file hosting websites, including The Pirate Bay and Google Docs.

This order was a significant departure from the 2012 Madras High Court orders, which blocked only URLs referencing web pages with illegal content, rather than entire websites.

The blocked websites included many file storage and torrent websites, but surprisingly, no Google sites were included.

An updated court order in July 2014 reduced the number of blocked sites to 219.

Here's a list of some of the file sharing and file hosting websites that were initially blocked:

The Delhi High Court's order was made in response to a request from Sony Entertainment.

This move highlights the growing trend of online content restrictions in India, where the government and courts are increasingly taking action against websites and platforms that host or facilitate the sharing of copyrighted or illegal content.

Pre-screening of Content is a crucial step in maintaining online safety and respect for users' boundaries.

Most platforms employ human moderators and AI-powered tools to review content before it's published, with some platforms using a combination of both.

These pre-screening processes can be time-consuming and may lead to delays in content publication.

In some cases, pre-screening may involve checking for keywords, phrases, or images that could be considered objectionable.

The goal of pre-screening is to ensure that content aligns with community guidelines and doesn't promote hate speech, harassment, or other forms of harm.

Pre-screening can also help prevent the spread of misinformation and fake news.

Some platforms may use machine learning algorithms to identify and flag potentially problematic content for human review.

Pre-screening can be an effective way to maintain a positive and respectful online environment, but it's not foolproof and can be influenced by biases.

The effectiveness of pre-screening processes can vary depending on the platform's resources and the complexity of the content being reviewed.

The government of India has a way to circumvent the already-lax requirements of Section 69A through a less restrictive path. This involves using takedown notices under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Section 79 allows the government to send a takedown notice to online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, for allegedly hosting illegal content. If the platform doesn't comply, they risk losing their safe harbour status and facing significant fines and imprisonment of their local employees.

What the government does through Section 79 is send a threat to the company: remove the content or face direct legal responsibility. Chima, an expert, describes this as a "threat to the company".

The use of Section 79 to censor online content is a concern, as it bypasses the requirements of Section 69A. In March, X filed a lawsuit against the Union government in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the government is misusing Section 79 for censorship.

Chima believes that withholding information can harm India's interests, and that the Constitution needs to continue operating, even during military situations. The armed forces are there to uphold the Constitution and defend it.

The blocking orders issued under Section 69A are described as unconstitutional by Chima.

For more insights, see: Iraqi Telecommunications and Post Company

Mobile apps and communication have been a significant target of internet censorship in India.

In May 2023, 14 communication apps were banned due to their potential use by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir. These apps included Wickrme, Mediafire, Briar, and many others.

Some of these banned communication apps were used for secure and private messaging, such as Wickrme and Briar.

Other apps, like Nandbox and Conion, were also banned for unknown reasons.

The Indian government has taken a strong stance against apps that pose a threat to national security.

Here's a list of some of the communication apps that were banned in India:

In addition to these communication apps, several mobile apps were also banned in India in 2020. These apps included PUBG Mobile, which was banned due to its potential impact on youth and national security.

Many other mobile apps were also banned, mostly due to their Chinese origin. These apps included Alipay, AlipayHK, and Mobile Taobao.

A fresh viewpoint: Internet and Mobile Association of India

India's national security policy is undermining freedom of expression and the protection of Internet users' personal data.

The country's authorities have stepped up Internet surveillance since the Mumbai bombings of 2008.

This increased surveillance is putting pressure on technical service providers, who are being forced to comply with the government's demands.

The Indian government publicly rejects accusations of censorship, but the reality is that the national security policy is having a chilling effect on online freedom.

Reporters Without Borders added India to its list of "countries under surveillance" in March 2012, citing the country's deteriorating Internet freedom record.

For more insights, see: Internet Security Protocols

India's social media landscape is a complex one. The government's efforts to regulate content creators have raised concerns about online freedom.

The Indian government's ranking on the World Press Freedom Index has fallen consistently since Modi came to power in 2014, with India ranking 161 in 2023. This is a stark contrast to the importance of social media in the political sphere.

Pressure on private companies to remove information perceived to endanger public order or national security has increased since late 2009. Companies are required to have designated employees to receive government blocking requests, and non-compliance can result in up to seven years' imprisonment.

Internet users have faced prosecution for online postings, and private companies hosting the content are obliged by law to hand over user information to the authorities.

India's social media landscape is a complex and rapidly evolving space. The country's government has taken steps to regulate online content, with a focus on removing objectionable material.

The Indian government's efforts to introduce stringent regulations for content creators come at a time when social media and "news influencers" have emerged as an alternative voice in India. This shift is reflected in India's ranking on the World Press Freedom Index, which has fallen consistently since Modi came to power in 2014.

In 2023, India ranked 161, slipping from 150 just a year ago. This decline highlights the challenges faced by social media platforms in balancing freedom of expression with the need to maintain public order.

The government has acknowledged the importance of social media in the political sphere, with a report in 2021 noting that "some negative influencers give false narratives and discredit the Government." This sentiment is echoed by content creator S. Meghnad, who has over 65,000 subscribers on YouTube and frequently produces political content.

For some reason, the BJP government has decided that the content creators are the problem, for probably their loss of face during the elections", Meghnad said. This perception has led to increased scrutiny of social media platforms and their role in shaping public discourse.

Here are some key statistics on India's social media landscape:

In India, a movement called Save Your Voice emerged in January 2012, founded by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and journalist Alok Dixit. The movement opposes the Information Technology Act of India and demands democratic rules for the governance of Internet.

The Save Your Voice campaign is specifically targeted at the draconian rules framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These rules have been criticized for infringing on online freedom and individual rights.

The Indian government's amended ITA, passed in 2008, expanded its censorship and monitoring capabilities. This move has led to increased pressure on private companies to remove information deemed objectionable, often without prior judicial approval.

Private companies, including ISPs and search engines, are required to remove content within 36 hours of notification by the authorities. Failure to comply can result in up to seven years' imprisonment.

The Save Your Voice campaign aims to raise awareness about these issues and push for democratic governance of the Internet.

In January 2012, a Delhi court issued summonses to Google and Facebook headquarters for objectionable content.

The Delhi High Court said that websites such as Google and Facebook were liable for the content, posted on their platform by users, as they benefited from the content.

Google responded stating it was impossible to pre-screen content, while an educationist argued that sanctions against online services would affect the fundamental right and be against public interest.

The Delhi Court allowed Yahoo's case to be heard separately after it appealed citing it did not host any objectionable content and does not fall under the social networking site category.

On 15 June 2012, the Madras High Court passed an order saying that entire websites cannot be blocked on the basis of "John Doe" orders.

The High Court clarified that the interim injunction is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website.

The High court provided this clarification after being approached by a consortium of Internet Service Providers.

In an interim order on 28 February 2014, Judge C T Selvam blocked the entire website www.savukku.net, directly contradicting an earlier order by Madras High Court on 15 April 2012 against banning entire websites instead of specific URLs.

In January 2012, a Delhi court issued summonses to Google and Facebook headquarters for objectionable content.

The Delhi High Court later ruled that websites like Google and Facebook are liable for the content posted on their platforms by users, as they benefit from it.

Google responded to the court and the Minister for Communication and IT Kapil Sibal, stating that it's impossible to pre-screen content.

A plea was made by an educationist, citing that any sanctions against online services will directly affect the fundamental right and be against public interest.

The Delhi Court allowed Yahoo's case to be heard separately after it appealed, citing that it doesn't host objectionable content and doesn't fall under the social networking site category.

This ruling highlights the complexities of online content regulation in India, where the courts are grappling with the balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect citizens from harm.

The Madras High Court has been a key player in shaping the country's stance on internet freedom.

In a landmark order on June 15, 2012, the court clarified that entire websites cannot be blocked on the basis of "John Doe" orders.

This decision was a response to a consortium of Internet Service Providers who approached the court.

The court directed the applicant to inform about the particulars of the URL where the infringing movie is kept within 48 hours.

The order was welcomed by the Indian media and net users.

However, this ruling was later contradicted by an interim order issued by Justice Cyril Selvam on February 28, 2014, which blocked the entire website www.savukku.net.

This move directly contradicted the earlier order by the Madras High Court on April 15, 2012, which stated that entire websites cannot be blocked.

The website savukku.net had exposed tapes of conversations between several high-profile individuals.

Here's an interesting read: Net Neutrality in India

The Government of India ordered the blocking of over 300 specific URLs between August 18 and 21, 2012.

The blocked content included articles, accounts, groups, and videos on popular websites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia.

These URLs were said to contain inflammatory content with fictitious details relating to Assam violence and supposedly promoting the North East exodus.

Many of the blocked URLs were related to Indian right-wing activism against corruption.

The Economic Times described the levels of censorship as "that have not so far been seen in India".

The Government of India also blocked the Twitter accounts of two Delhi-based journalists, Kanchan Gupta and Shiv Aroor, and Pravin Togadia.

The website of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and several other right-wing websites were also blocked.

Articles from Wikipedia and news reports of violence in Assam on various websites, including The Times of India, Firstpost, The Daily Telegraph, and Al-jazeera, were blocked.

A petition was created to oppose Internet censorship in India by the Indian diaspora in the US.

For more insights, see: Right to Internet Access