Since September 9, 2026, journalist Ila Kazmi’s Instagram account has been unavailable in India. In response to an inquiry sent to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Kazmi received a reply from officials who work on the blocking process under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The “Designated Officer, Section 69A Cell” told her that her account “is blocked under section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act” and asked her to “take up the matter with the concerned State department” on September 15. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) shared this via publication of the email and is providing the journalist pro bono legal support.

There is meant to be a stark difference between how the mechanisms under section 69A and section 79(3)(b) establish distinct legal mechanisms.

  • As upheld in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Centre can block content under section 69A through a committee process that provides for a hearing and periodic reviews.
  • Section 79(3)(b), on the other hand, is for taking away the legal immunity of platforms if, “on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency” that information on its service “is being used to commit the unlawful act“, it “fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource”. This process does not provide affected users with a hearing. In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court read this down, holding that any such notification “must strictly conform to the subject matters laid down in Article 19(2)” of the Constitution.

In the journalist’s case at hand, an officer responsible for the Section 69A process appears to have confirmed a restriction imposed under Section 79(3)(b)while pointing Kazmi to an authority it does not name.

What has changed since 2025?

Via the courts: X Corp’s challenge to the Sahyog portal was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court in September 2025. The Karnataka High Court also emphasised that these are two distinct routes and therefore, the only legal way to remove content is not Section 69A. Upon X’s appeal, the Centre’s response was sought by the High Court in March 2026.

Change in rules: A notification dated October 22, 2025, which came into force on November 15, 2025, rewrote rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. The amendment introduced requirements governing takedown intimations, as well as requiring the “specific URL or identifier” to be specified in the information shared. It was further mandated that this information must come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, or Deputy Inspector General for the police. These intimations are to be reviewed monthly by an officer not below the rank of Secretary “to ensure that such intimations are necessary, proportionate, and consistent” with Section 79(3)(b).

Change in time: On February 10, 2026, an amendment notified on February 10, 2026, reduced the time available to platforms to act on directions from governmental agencies from 36 hours to three hours, as noted by IFF.

All of this together means that a Section 79(3)(b) intimation is now signed off on by a senior officer. However, it may not change much because the reviews will happen after content is removed, and the process still does not expressly provide affected users with an opportunity to be heard.

Who handles these notices?

The publicly available notices offer some idea about officers who look into these notices, but they don’t paint the entire picture. The available evidence includes:

  • As noted above, the reply for Kazmi came from the Section 69A Cell’s Designated Officer. IFF argues that this “suggests that MeitY has visibility over intimations issued by other authorities under Section 79(3)(b)“, and that the ministry “confirmed that it knew who had ordered it” while declining to say.
  • The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), which runs the Sahyog Portal, said to MediaNama, in an RTI reply, that it holds no details of the notices issued through the portal, and that its role is “limited to facilitation“, MediaNama reported on October 19.
  • Gaurav Tyagi, Deputy Commissioner of Police for Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations, told Newslaundry that “several requests have been sent by the Delhi Police to Meta for removing content which was illegal under the BNSS in the last month.” This is consistent with statements made by Meta’s counsel before the Delhi High Court that often it is local law enforcement agencies which upload blocking requests onto the Sahyog portal across the country, as Law Trend reported.
  • The affected people are not informed of which route was used. When the Bring Back Ballot campaign challenged the withholding of its Instagram account in the Delhi High Court by invoking Section 69A, the Centre’s counsel accepted notice on behalf of the Home Ministry, MeitY “and its designated officer”, ANI reported. Contrastingly, Kazmi was told that her account had been blocked under Section 79(3)(b).

Can a whole account be withheld under Section 79(3)(b)?

Kazmi’s petition argues that Rule 3(1)(d)’s requirement to identify specific material does not authorise the withholding of her entire account.

“An account is not content but the medium through which a person speaks,” the petition says, as quoted by IFF.

This is what the Delhi High Court also nudged the process into when it directed that the blocked accounts be restored while allowing specifically identified content to stay withheld, it said.

On October 9, MeitY, the Home Ministry, the Delhi Police Commissioner and Meta were directed by the Delhi High Court to share the Sahyog takedown orders behind Kazmi’s reel and account. This would help identify which authority issues these orders and on what grounds. The matter is next listed on November 17.

What MediaNama has asked MeitY

  • What role the Section 69A Cell plays in relation to intimations issued under Section 79(3)(b) by other ministries, state governments and police, including through the Sahyog portal
  • Whether the Section 69A Cell receives copies of, or has access to, such intimations
  • Which officers or units in the ministry examine blocking requests under Section 69A, which handle intimations under Section 79(3)(b), and whether any of them are the same
  • Who conducts the monthly review required under Rule 3(1)(d), how many reviews have been held since November 15, 2025, and whether any intimation has been withdrawn after review
  • Which authority issued the intimation against Kazmi’s account, and why its identity was not shared with her
  • Whether the ministry considers that Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) permits the withholding of an entire account

MeitY has also not responded to questions MediaNama sent on October 29, which included whether the restrictions on Instagram and Facebook since October were made under Section 69A or Section 79(3)(b). This story will be updated with any response.

Also read:

The post Why is the IT ministry’s blocking desk confirming takedowns under a different provision? appeared first on MEDIANAMA.