Sources –
District Magistrates in Jammu, Ramban, Doda and Kishtwar have imposed wide-ranging restrictions on social media activity for 60 days, citing threats to public order and communal harmony. The orders, issued on April 17 under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), prohibit users from posting or sharing any content that could promote enmity, spread rumours, incite violence, or hurt religious sentiments.
What the orders say: The orders also bar circulation of “false, fabricated or misleading” information, morphed or out-of-context social media, and any online calls for boycotts, threats, or mobilisation of crowds against communities. Residents have been directed not only to avoid such content but also to report it to authorities. Group admins and moderators across platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook and YouTube have been made jointly responsible for ensuring compliance, with legal liability for failure to act.
Legal ambiguity around group admin liability: Holding group admins and moderators liable for user-generated content has been a contested issue in India. Courts have taken differing views, while the Bombay High Court (2021) held that WhatsApp group admins cannot be held vicariously liable without “common intention”. More recent rulings, including a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision (2023), have upheld charges against admins in certain cases. Earlier police advisories, such as in Maharashtra in 2024, have also warned of action against admins for content shared in groups. This creates legal uncertainty around the extent of responsibility placed on intermediaries and individuals managing online communities.
Enforcement and penalties: To enforce the orders, district police have been directed to register FIRs “without any undue delay,” while cyber units will monitor social media round-the-clock. Authorities have also warned that violations could attract multiple charges under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 152, 196, 197, 298 and 353, as well as Section 69A of the IT Act and the 2021 IT Rules, carrying penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment of up to seven years or more.
Among the provisions cited, Section 353 of the BNS (public mischief) has been increasingly used in cases involving online speech. For instance, stand-up comedian Anudeep Katikala was recently detained by Andhra Pradesh police over YouTube jokes, with charges including public mischief. Such cases have raised concerns about the provision’s broad use and its potential impact on free expression.
The orders further instruct social media intermediaries to act swiftly on takedown requests and warn of loss of “safe harbour” protection for non-compliance. District administrations have also indicated the use of the government’s Sahyog platform to escalate content blocking requests.
The Sahyog portal, created by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ I4C in 2024, is designed to streamline content takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, where platforms risk losing safe harbour for non-compliance. The government has argued that it improves coordination and speeds up action against unlawful content, with over 500 platforms onboarded as of now. However, its use remains contested. Earlier in April, comedian Kunal Kamra told the Bombay High Court that police had sent “thousands” of takedown notices through the portal, while platforms like X have challenged it as a mechanism that bypasses procedural safeguards under Section 69A.
IFF raises legal concerns: However, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has strongly opposed these measures, urging immediate withdrawal. In a statement issued on April 19, IFF described the orders as “carte-blanche prohibitory censorship” and argued that they are “ex facie illegal, overbroad and disproportionate”.
IFF has raised concerns that the orders effectively enable pre-emptive blocking of content without following the statutory process under Section 69A of the IT Act, which requires authorisation by designated central government officers. It noted that “there is only one nodal officer notified for blocking content under the Sahyog mechanism, namely, CID, Jammu and Kashmir” and questioned the authority of district magistrates to issue such sweeping directions.
Supreme Court precedent cited: The group also flagged the lack of specific evidence justifying the use of emergency powers under Section 163. Citing the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India judgment, IFF highlighted the court’s warning that such powers cannot be used “in a casual and cavalier manner” and must be backed by “material facts” demonstrating a genuine emergency.
According to IFF, the orders rely on broad and repeated references to threats like “inflammatory content” and “false narratives” without establishing the urgency required for such restrictions. It argued that blanket prohibitions on a wide range of online speech are “unjustified, unnecessary, and disproportionate” to the stated objective of maintaining public order.
The organisation has called on the district administrations to “immediately withdraw or suspend” the orders, warning that they pose a direct threat to freedom of speech and expression.
Broader pattern of restrictions in J&K: The orders come amid continued use of restrictive measures in Jammu and Kashmir. In recent months, authorities have imposed VPN bans across districts like Rajouri, Poonch and Kulgam, with reports of FIRs and even street-level phone checks to enforce compliance. The region has also seen repeated internet shutdowns, including in Bhaderwah (2025) and Doda, often citing “public order” concerns, even as transparency around such orders has been questioned following the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India ruling, where the Supreme Court held that internet access is linked to free speech and that shutdowns must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and publicly disclosed.
Read more:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。