Why in news?

Recently, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, directed GitHub to remove repositories hosting BitChat — a Bluetooth mesh messaging app developed by X (formerly Twitter) co-founder Jack Dorsey.

The order, issued close to midnight, has raised questions about surveillance, free speech, and the legal process for content-blocking in India.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About BitChat
• What the Government Order States?
• Legal Basis of the Order
• Relevant Judicial Precedents
• Criticism of the Order

About BitChat

• A decentralised, peer-to-peer messaging application operating over Bluetooth mesh networks.
• Requires no internet connection, no servers, and no phone numbers — unlike traditional messaging apps dependent on centralised infrastructure that can be monitored or disabled.
• Each device functions as both client and server, automatically discovering nearby peers and relaying messages across multiple hops to extend network reach.
• Offers censorship resistance, surveillance resistance, and infrastructure independence, remaining functional during internet outages, natural disasters, protests, or in low-connectivity regions.
• The order comes amid repeated internet shutdowns near protest sites, which have pushed protesters toward Bluetooth-based platforms like BitChat.

What the Government Order States?

• The order directed GitHub to disable access to three repositories (including the Android app and release files) within three hours, warning of criminal prosecution for non-compliance.
• It argues the app enables anonymous communication without mandatory registration, phone verification, or centralised logging — significantly impeding lawful interception, attribution, and investigation.
• It further states that decentralised mesh communication can be misused to evade surveillance and coordinate unlawful assemblies, violent protests, misinformation, radicalisation, and activities prejudicial to India's sovereignty, security, and public order.

Legal Basis of the Order

• The order was issued under:
  • Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — read with
    • Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
• What Section 79(3)(b) does: An intermediary loses "safe harbour" protection if, upon actual knowledge or government notification that hosted content is being used for unlawful acts, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access without destroying evidence.
• Key legal distinction: Section 79 itself does not confer blocking power. Formal blocking directions are ordinarily issued under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009, which require a hearing, written reasons, and are subject to review — a more procedurally rigorous route than the one used here.

Relevant Judicial Precedents

• Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015)
  • Landmark ruling on digital free speech.
  • Read down Section 79(3)(b), clarifying intermediaries must remove content only when directed by a court or government authority acting under due process — protecting platforms from arbitrary takedown notices.
  • Held that online speech enjoys the same constitutional protection as offline speech, and vague laws have a "chilling effect," violating Article 19(1)(a) unless justified as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
• Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020)
  • Established the proportionality standard: restrictions must correspond to what is "actually necessary" to address an emergent situation.
  • Requires restrictions to be tailored by territorial extent, stage of emergency, nature of urgency, duration, and nature of the restriction itself.

Criticism of the Order

• The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has criticised the takedown notice on two grounds:
  • It relies on the app's potential for misuse rather than identifying any actual unlawful content hosted in the repositories — arguing "anticipated misuse of a communications tool is not a lawful basis to prohibit the tool."
  • The midnight timing and blanket nature of the order fail the proportionality standard laid down in Anuradha Bhasin.

Conclusion

The BitChat takedown order highlights the recurring tension between state security concerns and digital free speech rights in India.

By invoking Section 79(3)(b) rather than the more procedurally safeguarded Section 69A route, the order raises questions about due process, proportionality, and whether anticipated misuse of a technology can justify restricting its availability altogether.