During the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, the four-year-old team from Bolta Hindustan hit the ground in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. Their coverage was a success and they had big plans for the upcoming polls – more states, more reports, and more content for their growing audience.

But these plans are now on hold.

On April 3, Bolta Hindustan, a Delhi-based news platform, received an email from YouTube, saying the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had sent the company a notice to block the channel. The team assumed this was some sort of spam and ignored the email.

Twelve hours later, the YouTube channel – which has over three lakh subscribers – vanished. Shocked, the team consulted the email again, which said the notice had been issued under Rule 15(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 read with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. 

It’s unclear why the ministry swooped down on the fledgling newsroom. YouTube’s email said the government notice was confidential so it was unable to share it with the team.

“How can they order something like this without providing a reason?” asked Samar Raj, Bolta Hindustan’s editor. “There is no notice, no warning, no reasoning, and no process. There is no way to know what they had an issue with.”

But Bolta Hindustan is not alone. On the same day, digital outlet National Dastak, which has over 94 lakh subscribers on YouTube, received a similar email from YouTube citing a ministry notice. In February, digital outlet Article19 India received an email from Meta saying its Facebook page had been “restricted”. 

Last month, YouTube had blocked in India two videos by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation linked to the killing of a Sikh separatist. The social media giant told ABC that it had received an order for the same from India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting but that the order was “confidential”.

Shambu Kumar Singh, founder of National Dastak, told Newslaundry that, like Bolta Hindustan, YouTube refused to share the “confidential” ministry notice with him. Singh is also contesting in the Lok Sabha polls as an independent candidate in Bihar.

“Maybe our fault is that our stories focus on marginalised people – on Bahujans, farmers and against the caste system,” he said. “We report on constitutional rights and maybe that is our fault. What can we do now that they haven’t even told us the reason?”

On April 8, senior members of the Congress had flagged the banning of YouTube channels with the Chief Election Commissioner, stating the government should not have the power to do so during elections.

“The Election Commission said that it decided that Sections 69 and 79 of the IT Act – through which several YouTube channels’ free speech platforms are being shut down – will not be used,” said Congress leader Gurdeep Singh Sappal, who had written to the EC in this regard. “No YouTube channel or media platform should be banned. The EC agreed and said free speech should be enforced during elections.”

But meanwhile, the ban stands, though Bolta Hindustan’s Samar Raj is hopeful about the outcome of Sappal’s meeting with the EC.

“If not, we will see what the legal route can be,” he told Newslaundry. “This is an effort to stifle independent media standing on their own resources. We cannot bow down to pressure. We will open another YouTube channel or use other media platforms to reach more people.”

Restricted and demonetised 

In February, Delhi-based Article 19 India received a notification from Facebook on its page being restricted and demonetised. Founder Naveen Kumar told Newslaundry the email said he could only appeal against the decision after a period of one year.

“Usually the period after which you can appeal is much shorter. But now it’s clear they don’t want us to create content during elections,” Kumar said. “Facebook said our page had violated community guidelines, which is vague and unclear. For example, one video they flagged was a report on how a cow killed a child in Uttar Pradesh. This was flagged as child abuse by Facebook.”

Kumar said Facebook had informed him of “continuous complaints” against Article19 India’s page but did not specify who had complained. 

The restrictions are a huge blow to Kumar. His portal’s followers will no longer receive notifications when new content is uploaded on Facebook. And the demonetisation means he won’t be able to make any money from the videos he uploads. He added that several of his YouTube videos had also been demonetised in the last three months.

“All these platforms only believe in one-way communication,” he said. “You just fill a form and wait for their response. There are no proper communication channels. I worked in TV for 20 years and then came here due to the situation in television media. Now where do we go from here?”

Other independent digital journalists told Newslaundry their videos on Facebook and YouTube are no longer being monetised too. Ajit Anjum, for instance, said the monetisation of his Facebook account had been “restricted” for three months. Facebook said it was for sharing “unoriginal content”.

“Facebook is a big medium to reach people so this greatly affects reach,” said Anjum, who appealed the decision but received no response. “In the last six months, reach is also being controlled. My videos, which would have got over one million views a year ago, now get views in thousands.”

Similarly, independent journalist Sakshi Joshi said her reach has “become very restricted” on Facebook since November. “Hardly any of the videos get monetised now,” she said.

The legal question 

Journalist Mandeep Punia took the battle to the high court when the social media accounts of his organisation, Gaon Savera, were withheld in India in August 2023 and February 2024. This was following “correspondence received from the government.

Punia’s plea in the Punjab and Haryana High Court said the action was “illegal” since there is no compliance of Section 69A of the IT Act, and that blocking the account violated Punia’s “fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution”. 

The court issued notice to the central government, YouTube, and other social media platforms, seeking a response. Punia told Newslaundry that the Twitter accounts were restored the day after the plea but he still faced “censorship on Instagram and YouTube”.

In February, the I&B ministry sent a notice to The Caravan under Section 69A of the IT Act to take down a story it had published within 24 hours. The magazine challenged the order in the Delhi High Court, saying it was not given a “fair hearing” or given details of the allegations against it. It also said the ministry’s inter-departmental committee had “revealed their pre-determined mind” in its decision to issue the notice “without detailing any reasons”. 

Now, under Rule 15(2) of the IT Rules, an intermediary such as YouTube is obliged to “delete or modify or block the relevant content and information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access within the time limit specified in the direction”, as directed by an authorised officer on approval of ministry’s decision. 

Section 69A of the IT Act says the central government or any of its authorised officers can order intermediaries to block public access to information online in the interest of India’s sovereignty, integrity, defence, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or to prevent incitement of offences related to these issues.

Sections of the IT Rules have been stayed by the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court. However, Radhika Roy, litigation counsel at the Internet Freedom Foundation, told Newslaundry that Rules 14, 15 and 16 have not been stayed by the courts so they are still valid.

“Technically, it is permissible for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to employ these rules to block any content. One of the reasons that the courts had not stayed these rules was that they were not operational at the time,” she said. 

But what about transparency of orders?

“YouTube is not obligated to pass on the reasons to the user. Most of the blocking orders which are intimidated to the user by the intermediary only state the entity which has issued the blocking order,” Roy said. “We have tried to seek access to these orders but have never been given them. But if the channels have been identified, it is obligatory for the ministry to provide them with the reasons.”   

If you’re reading this story, you’re not seeing a single advertisement. That’s because Newslaundry powers ad-free journalism that’s truly in public interest. Support our work and subscribe today.