Published Oct 19, 2026 | 4:50 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 19, 2026 | 4:50 PM
Meta owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp.
Synopsis: The Union government, in an October 10 advisory to Meta, asked it to review its content recommendation systems, stating that certain posts relating to “public-order and law and order situations” were being “prominently displayed and recommended” and could cause “public confusion, apprehension and disturbance of public order and social tranquillity”. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) accused the Centre of using the advisory to suppress coverage of anti-SIR protests and police action against protesters. IFF demanded the advisory’s withdrawal and publication, as well as disclosure of the action Meta had taken under it.
The MeitY has asked Meta to review its content recommendation systems and curb the disproportionate amplification of material relating to public events, police action and public order, under an October 10 advisory that requires immediate compliance. The Internet Freedom Foundation has called for its withdrawal, alleging that it could suppress reporting on protests against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and police action, while several journalists, media outlets and other accounts have faced restrictions on Meta’s platforms. IFF has also demanded that MeitY publish and withdraw the October 8 and 10 advisories, and that Meta disclose all content removals, account restrictions and downranking carried out under them.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), in an advisory to Meta Platforms dated October 10, has asked the American social media giant to review its content recommendation and ranking systems, prevent disproportionate exposure to “certain content relating to ongoing public events and developments” and provide information or assistance to law enforcement and authorised government agencies.
The advisory directs Meta to take the necessary measures with immediate effect and report to the Ministry on its compliance.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) alleged that the advisory was a thinly veiled direction to suppress content and reporting on the ongoing protests against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country and police action against protesters. In a statement on Monday (19 October), IFF demanded its withdrawal.
The advisory, which was not published publicly and was first reported by Hindustan Times, was issued by MeitY’s Cyber Laws Division under File No. 6(2)/2026-Cyberlaws. It targets content relating to “public-order and law and order situations” that the Ministry says is being “prominently displayed and recommended” through Meta’s feeds and recommendation systems.
It states that such content, “when presented without adequate context or disproportionately amplified”, could cause “public confusion, apprehension and disturbance of public order and social tranquillity”.
“Pay particular attention to unverified or misleading claims regarding the imposition of emergency restrictions, police action or other official measures,” the advisory states.
It has also called for adequate context to be provided for photographs, videos and other material depicting ongoing public events, and for the identification and review of content gaining significant reach that could cause public confusion, violence or disturbance of public order.
The Ministry has advised Meta to review its recommendation and content-ranking mechanisms and ensure that potentially misleading, manipulated or out-of-context material is not disproportionately amplified or repeatedly recommended to users.
MeitY’s advisory to Meta directs the suppression of protest reporting on Instagram and Facebook. It must be withdrawn.
19 Oct 2026
On 10 October 2026, the Cyber Laws Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an advisory to Meta Platforms bearing File No. 6(2)/2026-Cyberlaws. It was not published on the MEITY website and first HT and then PTI reported it on 18 October. Any such advisory is not a legal order and MEITY is not legally empowered to issue them on the basis of any statutory provision. This advisory followed, by two days, an advisory of 8 October to all social media intermediaries calling for “enhanced diligence” over content on “ongoing public events”, asking platforms to “label or add context” to misleading content and to “give priority to complaints from authorised Government agencies”. IFF called for the withdrawal of that advisory on 9 October. The Meta advisory was issued on the day the Delhi Police detained protesters and journalists at the demonstrations called over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The advisory states that content relating to “public-order and law and order situations” is being “prominently displayed and recommended” on Meta’s platforms and, “when presented without adequate context or disproportionately amplified”, “may contribute to public confusion, apprehension and disturbance of public order and social tranquillity”. It singles out “unverified or misleading claims regarding the imposition of emergency, restrictions, police action or other official measures”. Further, Meta is advised to review its “recommendation and content ranking mechanisms”, to ensure its systems “do not result in disproportionate exposure of users to a single or limited set of narratives”, and to furnish “information or assistance” to law enforcement, “with immediate effect”. PTI reports that the Ministry acted on inputs from “agencies” that Meta’s platforms were not promoting all “narratives” equally.
This advisory matches restrictions on META platforms related to protest content and reporting in the same timline. On 10 October, the Instagram account of Molitics India was withheld in India. On 11 October, a Mathrubhumi English reel showing a woman clinging to a pole as police officers attempted to detain her was restricted citing, “a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement”, and a video report by Observer Post Hindi was restricted on Facebook by what Meta called an “automated system” acting under the IT Rules, 2021. On 12 October, the Instagram account of journalist Shubhangi Das Gupta was restricted in India for alleged non-compliance with “local IT Rules”. On 13 October, the account of Journo Mirror (about five lakh followers) was withheld. The account of Fridays For Future India has since been withheld without any stated reason. Meta’s notices to these users do not disclose what is unlawful about the content.
As per notices shared by us by those who have been censored by META, they take two forms:
1. “a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement under Section 79(3)(b)”, and,
2. “through an automated system implemented pursuant to legal requirements under India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules”.
Neither names the issuing agency, the order, the provision of law or offence the content is said to disclose, or the URL complained of. We know due to litigation that the first notice related to a Sahyog order issued by a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA), while the second one is without any legal order. At the same time, several users received no communication at all. Instagram used the same “automated system” notice against Anjali Priya, Varnika Dhawan and Sachin Gupta after the July protests, and against cartoonist Satish Acharya, who lost nine cartoons and then his account between February and September 2026.
In April 2026, The Hindu reported that Meta automatically restricts government and police flagged content in India at scale, and seeks a separate government direction before restoring content later found to be legally unsupported. IFF objected to Meta on 4 May 2026. IFF condemns the advisory of 10 October and the restrictions imposed in its wake. An executive communication that instructs a platform to suppress “unverified” claims about “police action” and to correct a “limited set of narratives”, issued on the day of a police crackdown and kept from the public, is a censorship directive in all but name. It makes the State the editor of what Indians may see of a protest against the State. IFF calls upon MeitY to withdraw it and upon Meta to disclose what it has done under it.
Our demands
1. MeitY must withdraw the advisories of 8 and 10 October 2026 forthwith and publish them.
2. MeitY must abandon proposed Rule 3(4) and restrict content only by reasoned, published orders under Section 69A or notices compliant with Rule 3(1)(d).
3. Meta must disclose every takedown, account restriction and act of downranking carried out under the advisories, and its compliance report to the Ministry.
4. Meta must restore the accounts and posts of journalists, outlets and creators restricted since 8 October 2026 unless it holds a valid legal order, and must furnish that order to the person affected.
5. Meta must suspend the automated restriction of content in India and disclose on what inputs its “automated system” acts.
Any person whose account or content has been withheld in India since 8 October 2026 may write to IFF at legal@internetfreedom.in. IFF is providing assistance pro bono.
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) October 19, 2026
Also Read: Gangsters vs protesters: Abhijeet Dipke questions differential treatment of Delhi Police
IFF said the advisory makes “the State the editor of what Indians may see of a protest against the State” and urged Meta to disclose the measures it had taken under the advisory.
It said Meta restricted several accounts and posts in India around the time of the 10 October advisory.
“The Instagram account of Molitics India was withheld in India on 10 October. On 11 October, an Instagram reel published by Mathrubhumi English showing a woman clinging to a pole as police officers attempted to detain her was restricted with a notice citing ‘a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement’. A video report by Observer Post Hindi was also restricted on Facebook through what Meta described as an ‘automated system’ operating under the IT Rules, 2021,” IFF noted.
“The Instagram account of journalist Shubhangi Das Gupta was restricted on 12 October for alleged non-compliance with ‘local IT Rules’. The account of Journo Mirror, which has about five lakh followers, was withheld on 13 October. The account of Fridays For Future India was also withheld without any stated reason.”
The organisation said notices issued by Meta did not identify the issuing agency, the legal order, the provision of law or alleged offence, or the URL of the content complained of. Some users received no communication at all.
According to IFF, one type of notice referred to an order issued through Sahyog by a law enforcement agency, while another cited an automated system operating under the IT Rules without a legal order.
IFF said Meta had used the same automated-system notice against Anjali Priya, Varnika Dhawan and Sachin Gupta after the July protests. Cartoonist Satish Acharya lost nine cartoons and then his account between February and September 2026.
IFF has called on MeitY to withdraw and publish both the 8 October and 10 October advisories. It has also demanded that the Ministry abandon proposed Rule 3(4) and restrict content only through reasoned, published orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act or notices complying with Rule 3(1)(d).
The organisation has demanded that Meta disclose every takedown, account restriction and instance of downranking carried out under the advisories, along with its compliance report to the Ministry.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
