The Battle Over Free Speech and Social Media in India
In January, an old post on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, sparked concern among police in the Indian city of Satara. The message, written in 2023, described a senior ruling-party politician as “useless.” Despite its limited reach, the post became a point of contention when inspector Jitendra Shahane issued a content-removal notice, claiming it could incite communal tensions.
This incident is part of a broader legal battle between X and the Indian government. In March, X filed a lawsuit against the government, challenging its strict measures to regulate online content. Since 2023, India has intensified its efforts to monitor the internet, allowing more officials to issue takedown orders directly through a government website launched in October.
X argues that these actions violate free speech and empower government agencies to suppress legitimate criticism. On the other hand, the Indian government claims its approach combats unlawful content and ensures accountability. It also states that major tech companies like Meta and Google support its initiatives.
Musk, known for his strong stance on free speech, has faced conflicts with authorities in the US, Brazil, and Australia. His case against Modi’s government in the Karnataka High Court targets the foundation of India’s tightened internet censorship, which affects one of X’s largest user bases.
Despite this, Musk expressed optimism about India in 2023, stating it had “more promise than any large country in the world” and that Modi had encouraged him to invest there. However, the ongoing legal dispute reveals a complex system of content removal, with some officials criticizing material on X and seeking to censor a wide range of content.
The takedown orders include not only misinformation but also directives to remove news about a deadly stampede and cartoons depicting the prime minister in an unfavourable light. These cases highlight the broad scope of content targeted by authorities.
The “Censorship Portal” and Legal Challenges
For years, only the IT and Information & Broadcasting ministries could order content removal, primarily for threats to sovereignty, defense, or public order. However, in 2023, the IT ministry expanded this power, allowing all federal and state agencies and police to issue takedown notices for “any information which is prohibited under any law.”
This shift led to the creation of Sahyog, a government website designed to facilitate takedown requests. X refused to join Sahyog, calling it a “censorship portal,” and subsequently sued the government over the legal basis of the new system.
In June, X argued that many takedown orders targeted content involving satire or criticism of the ruling government, suggesting a pattern of abuse to suppress free speech. Some advocates have criticized the stricter takedown regime, arguing it stifles dissent.
Cases of Content Removal
Court filings show that between March 2024 and June 2025, federal and state agencies ordered X to remove around 1,400 posts or accounts. Over 70% of these were issued by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, which developed the Sahyog website. The agency, part of the home ministry, has been central to the government’s response to X’s lawsuit.
The government’s report highlighted examples of misinformation, including fabricated images that portrayed a prominent figure in a derogatory manner. Other directives extended beyond fake news, targeting press reports on matters of public interest, such as a tragic stampede at a railway station.
In Chennai, police demanded the removal of offensive posts, including a cartoon featuring a red dinosaur labeled “inflation” that depicted Modi and a state chief minister struggling with prices. Another cartoon mocked the state government’s flood preparedness. X argued that these posts did not incite political tensions, and they remain online.
Deputy commissioner B Geetha criticized X for not fully understanding cultural sensitivities, stating that what may be acceptable elsewhere can be taboo in India. This highlights the challenges of balancing free speech with local norms and values.