​Digital exile: On digital censorship

A decade-long trend in digital governance in India crescendoed last week when a slew of social media accounts operated by independent activists and journalists were blocked apparently for criticising the Union government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his government’s West Asia policies and the LPG crisis. In seven years, from 2014 to 2021, the number of URLs, posts, and accounts blocked ballooned from 470 to 9,800; since then, there is evidence that entire accounts, especially if they were publishing politically unfavourable comments, were being blocked. There was a wave of censorship during the farmers’ protest in 2020-21; the government restored many accounts after international outcry but this also demonstrated that it was not beyond mass censorship. Similarly, the government used emergency powers under the IT Rules to block links to a BBC documentary in 2023, which also expanded the definition of what constituted a “threat to public order”. But when Twitter (now X) challenged several blocking orders, between 2021 and 2022, in the Karnataka High Court, the High Court dismissed the plea and fined Twitter, further emboldening the state to censor accounts.

In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Supreme Court of India upheld Section 69A of the IT Act 2000 precisely because of its procedural safeguards, including requiring reasoned orders and judicial review. In practice, however, the government has been diluting the safeguards through an expansive use of Rule 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules, which requires blocking proceedings to be confidential. When this stipulation is invoked to withhold blocking orders or their reasons from affected parties, it undermines their ability to challenge the action in court, eroding the very safeguards that justified the constitutionality of Section 69A. The 2009 Rules also require blocking orders to be reviewed by a committee composed under the IT Rules 2009, yet this is an entirely executive body and has never overturned a government blocking order. In effect, the government is openly and systematically bypassing the right to be heard and violating the doctrine of proportionality. Rule 16 is a procedural rule, yet the government is using it to override the constitutional right to free speech while shielding itself from judicial review. A person’s entire account being blocked amounts to a digital exile, removing the person from the public square, which is a hallmark of an authoritarian government rather than of a liberal democracy. The government’s plan to decentralise blocking powers to multiple Ministries could effectively create a regime of arbitrary censorship, where any department can silence a critic without the specialised oversight, however flawed, of the IT Ministry.

Overall Analysis

The editorial presents a strong critique of the growing trend of digital censorship in India, arguing that state actions increasingly threaten freedom of expression. It begins by describing a “decade-long trend” that has intensified recently, using the word “crescendoed” to suggest a gradual but alarming escalation. By citing examples such as the blocking of activists’ and journalists’ accounts, the author establishes a cause-and-effect narrative — criticism of the government is being met with restrictive digital action. The language here is critical and evidence-based, supported by statistics showing the sharp rise in blocked content.

The editorial then strengthens its argument by referring to past instances like the farmers’ protests and the blocking of a BBC documentary, showing that censorship is not isolated but part of a consistent pattern. The mention of legal battles involving Twitter (X) and the Karnataka High Court adds institutional depth, suggesting that even judicial responses have indirectly enabled state power. The tone here becomes more assertive, indicating concern over the normalization of such censorship practices.

In the second paragraph, the focus shifts to a legal and constitutional analysis. By referencing the Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) judgment, the editorial highlights how Section 69A of the IT Act was upheld due to safeguards like transparency and judicial review. However, the author argues that these safeguards are being systematically weakened through procedural mechanisms such as Rule 16, which allows confidentiality. The language becomes more technical and critical, emphasizing how procedural rules are being used to bypass fundamental rights.

The editorial further argues that withholding reasons for blocking undermines natural justice, particularly the right to be heard. Phrases like “eroding safeguards”, “bypassing judicial review”, and “violating proportionality” reflect a strong constitutional critique. The use of the metaphor “digital exile” is especially powerful — it conveys how blocking entire accounts effectively removes individuals from the public sphere, equating it with exclusion from democratic participation.

Finally, the editorial warns against further decentralization of censorship powers across ministries, suggesting that it could lead to arbitrary and unchecked suppression. The concluding language is cautionary and sharp, drawing a contrast between authoritarian tendencies and the ideals of a liberal democracy.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Crescendoed – gradually increased to a peak level.
2. Safeguards – protective measures or rules to prevent misuse.
3. Diluting – making something weaker or less effective.
4. Proportionality – the principle that actions should be appropriate and not excessive.
5. Arbitrary – based on random choice or personal will, not on reason or law.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that India’s increasing use of digital censorship mechanisms is undermining constitutional protections and democratic freedoms. It warns that procedural tools are being misused to silence dissent, turning digital platforms into controlled spaces rather than open forums for debate.

Tone: Strongly critical, cautionary, and constitutionally assertive.