The Cyber Crime Wing of the Tamil Nadu police issued a takedown notice to X Corp on May 8, directing the suspension/blocking of 18 URLs/posts, including those shared by YouTuber Maridhas, within three hours, by invoking the intermediary liability provisions under the IT Act and the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

Incidentally, most of the flagged URLs/posts allegedly contained content critical of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. The move drew criticism from netizens, who alleged that the police action was against freedom of speech.

The notice cited violations under Section 189 (Unlawful Assembly) of BNS. According to the communication, a request had been received from the Superintendent of Police, Social Media Cell, regarding certain posts containing provocative and politically sensitive remarks capable of inciting public unrest and disturbing public tranquillity. The notice stated that the posts encouraged unlawful assemblies that could adversely affect the maintenance of law and order, and potentially lead to loss of life and damage to public property.

Invoking Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the notice alleged that the reported URLs were being used to commit unlawful acts relating to decency, morality, and defamation.

The authorised officer, in the notice issued on May 8, directed X to immediately remove or disable access to the identified posts and objectionable URLs, and to take proactive measures to prevent further dissemination of such content on the platform. The officer warned that failure to act immediately could make the intermediary liable for prosecution.

Commenting on the notice issued by the Cyber Crime Wing, Narayanan Thirupathy, chief spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Tamil Nadu, termed it a blatant attack on free speech and political dissent. He said criticism of a political party or its leader, even if sharp, was not “provocative” enough to warrant police intervention and a three-hour takedown ultimatum. “Labelling legitimate questions about governance, funding, and policies as threats to public order sets a dangerous precedent. Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. Using cybercrime laws to silence voices critical of the TVK or any ruling dispensation undermines the very Constitution we claim to uphold,” he said.

“This unfortunate harassment has been perpetrated on the day the TVK assumed power. I hope the Chief Minister, who claims he faced several hurdles during his political journey, understands this excess, and advises the cybercrime police to withdraw its demand,” Mr. Thirupathy added.

Social media activist Dinesh alleged that the TVK had filed a complaint against him without valid reasons. “For what — speaking against Vijay anna or the TVK? Where are my fundamental rights? I am a citizen of this country, and have the right to speak against the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, as long as it is done respectfully,” he said.

K. Rajasekar, digital editor of Spark Pluz, said that while social media posts containing defamatory content or incitement to violence had been removed in the past, the current situation raised serious concerns. “Over the past few days, since the new government assumed office, posts and news reports critical of the government are allegedly being mass-reported in groups, and subsequently taken down. In addition, legal action is reportedly being initiated against individuals posting such content. I consider this condemnable and something that must be avoided in a democratic society that values freedom of expression and dissent,” he said.

Advocate S. Karthikeyan said that X Corp usually does not comply with such takedown requests, as it considers political dissent a part of free speech. “The police are aware of this. They often file petitions seeking takedown orders before magistrate courts by making only X Corp a respondent, while intentionally excluding the content creator. The courts then pass orders without hearing the affected individuals. Such one-sided orders raise concerns. Courts should insist that content creators or sharers be made parties to the petition so that their version can also be heard. This would be in line with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” he said.

However, senior officials of the Cyber Crime Wing maintained that issuing takedown notices was a routine procedure. “Whenever provocative content appears on social media, notices are issued after following due guidelines, seeking removal or disabling of such content. This time, too, following a request from the Superintendent of Police, Social Media Cell, we sent the notice to X,” an official said.