Delhi: On 11 June 2024, two days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office for his third consecutive term, TheJuiceMedia posted a notice from YouTube saying it had taken down a video called ‘Honest Government Ad | India’.
TheJuiceMedia is an Australia-based YouTube channel, in its words, “covering Government shitfuckery and the most pressing issues of our time”. The video in question is an excerpt from a longer video lampooning the state of democracy in 14 countries.
The notice said that India’s ministry of home affairs had asked for the video to be blocked for violating the following laws:
- section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: “Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot”
- section 504, IPC: “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”
- section 505, IPC: “Statements conducing to public mischief”
- section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act, 1971: Insults to Indian National Flag and Constitution of India.
On 22 June, thejuicemedia posted on X that both versions of the video had now been blocked in India.
It is not only foreign media that have faced the ire of the Modi government.
On 4 April 2024, Samar Raj, the editor of Bolta Hindustan, a popular Hindi news website, received an email from YouTube, warning him that his channel would be blocked on orders from the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB).
Raj assumed the email was a scam and ignored it. The channel was blocked 12 hours later.
In the email, YouTube wrote that they had received a notice issued under section 15(2) of the Information Technology Rules 2021and section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000.
Bolta Hindustan’s YouTube channel was restored 4 days later, on the 8 of May 2024.
Videos On Elections Targeted
Raj isn’t the only journalist who has said that the Indian government has censored their work.
“Dear @YouTubeIndia @YouTube this is the fourth video where you have limited the monetization just because we mentioned that Z plus security has been provided to the election commissioner,” independent journalist Sohit Mishra said on X on 13 April, 2024. “Should we not use the word election or election commissioner? How does this go against your policies?”
The screenshot in his tweet showed that while his video was still public, it had been restricted from earning ad revenue.
Sohit Mishra, who has over 370,000 subscribers on YouTube, has faced the same issue on multiple videos related to doubts over electronic voting machines (EVMs) and questions posed to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Ashok Kumar Pandey, an author, who runs the popular YouTube channel The Credible History, also complained of similar treatment, saying that two of his videos on EVMs were demonetised.
While these videos are still accessible, restricting videos from earning ad revenue still affects channels as they depend on this source of income.
Many other YouTubers who cover political issues say that only their EVM-related videos are being demonetised.
“It’s just the EVM stories that are getting targeted,” said Poonam Agarwal, another independent journalist. “All the other videos are just doing fine.”
Both Agarwal and Mishra have reported instances where their videos were initially demonetised upon upload, only to be re-monetised after 24 to 48 hours.
“YouTube initially demonetised six of my videos but suddenly started the monetisation for three of the videos without any explanation,” said Sohit.
“The first 24 hours are the most crucial period where the video gets the maximum amount of traffic,” said Agarwal. “This seems like it's been done on purpose.”
Article 14 received the following statement from a YouTube spokesperson: “We remained committed to providing timely and helpful information during elections, including elevating authoritative content, and showing information panels giving topical context for topics prone to misinformation, including electronic voting. Our Community Guidelines set the rules of the road for what content is allowed on YouTube, and our Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines detail what kinds of content are not suitable for advertisers. These policies are global and are applied consistently to all creators.”
No Clarity on ‘Community Guidelines’
In February 2024, Facebook sent Article 19, a Delhi-based channel, a notification stating that their page had been restricted and their videos demonetised.
“This means our subscribers will neither receive a notification from us nor can they see our posts unless they search for our name,” said Navin Kumar, the page's founder.
Facebook’s notice says the page was restricted as their content “does not follow our community standards.”
“Community guideline is such a vague term that it is just impossible even to counter,” said Kumar.
The social media platforms don’t usually state how the content violated their guidelines. “If there is a violation, we should know what that is,” said Raj, of Bolta Hindustan.
The lack of specifics in the notices makes it tougher for content creators to appeal the platform’s actions.
“I don’t understand what is happening here,” said Agarwal. “We are making videos that are being discussed in the public domain. So, where is the violation of community guidelines?”
After Article 14 sought comment from Facebook, a spokesperson said, "Our systems had erroneously placed monetization restrictions which have now been revoked.”
The IT Act: Primary Tool of Censorship
In March 2024, YouTube blocked two videos by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) about the killing of a Sikh separatist. YouTube informed the media house that they had taken this action upon receiving a notice from the MIB under the IT act.
The ABC Network also alleged that its crew faced “pressure from Indian authorities” and were questioned by Indian intelligence officials while reporting the story.
This wasn’t the first time that the Indian government had curbed reporting that was critical of them.
In February, the MIB ordered Caravan magazine to take down a story about the torture of civilians by the Indian Army in Jammu and Kashmir.
During the 2024 farmers' protest, the Indian government blocked 177 social media accounts and web links to maintain “public order”.
“The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) has used the IT Act and rules to establish a system of censorship,” said Mishi Choudhary, the founder of SFLC, a legal nonprofit focussed on freedom in the digital world.
In 2023, X (formerly Twitter) restricted the accounts of the ‘Indian American Muslim Council’ and ‘Hindus for Human Rights’, US-based human rights groups, in India, in compliance with legal demands from the Modi government.
The Indian government, in January last year, banned the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”, directing YouTube to take down the episode. Additionally, blocking directives were issued for over 50 tweets containing links to YouTube videos of the documentary.
Article 14 sought comment from X on 9 July 2024, but did not receive a response, despite a reminder on 28 July. We will update this story if they respond.
These are among the many incidents that have seen India's position in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, released by the global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), slide 19 places to 159 out of 180 countries compared to its 2014 ranking of 140, when Modi first assumed office.
Propaganda Channels Thrive
On 5 April 2024, Al Jazeera reported that many channels on YouTube, such as NMF news, peddle disinformation in order to prop up the Prime Minister of the country.
The report quotes a study done by the Narrative Research Lab, a Delhi-based data lab that analyses the content of print and social media channels, that found that the six channels examined downplayed their coverage of India's opposition parties, while they consistently portrayed Modi and the BJP in a positive light.
The article pointed out that these channels often push Islamophobic narratives.
Another report published by Decode showed how YouTube failed to act on hate speech spread by Sudarshan News, a far-right channel. The report found that 26 videos published by Sudarshan News violated YouTube's policies on hate speech, misinformation, and monetisation.
The videos spread conspiracy theories and promoted debunked claims about opposition leaders. Despite these violations, none of the videos had been taken down, amassing a total of 3.5 million views at the time the report was published.
The Procedural Lapse
According to Choudhary, the laws used for censorship create a procedural black hole that leave those who publish on platforms like YouTube without opportunity for redressal.
“Website blocks in India are primarily issued under section 69A of the IT Act, but rule 16 of the blocking rules provide a cloak of confidentiality to the order, rendering them unable to be challenged,” said Choudhary. “As the platforms no longer resist these orders, we see an uptick in their numbers.”
In a report, Shruti Narayan, Asia Pacific Policy fellow at Access Now, pointed out how governments don’t have the power to completely block a channel or user account.
She further added that section 15(3) of the IT Rules 2021 specifies that a blocking order can only pertain to a specific piece of content and must not necessitate any entity to cease its operations.
Gayatri Malhotra of the Internet Freedom Foundation said that the 2009 blocking rules were upheld in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India on the express condition that they include adequate safeguards.
The court found that the originator must be granted a hearing before any blocking action is undertaken, and the aggrieved party must be provided with a reasoned blocking order to enable them to challenge it in a court of law effectively.
“However, in practice, originators are seldom given notice, a hearing, or a copy of the blocking order,” Malhotra said. “The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) often cites the confidentiality requirement in rule 16 of the blocking rules to deny access to the blocking order.”
Article 14 sought comment from the MeitY on 24 May 2024, but there was no response, despite a reminder on 9 July. If they respond, we will update this story.
MediaNama, a media website, said it appeared the government was willing to demonstrate transparency in content removal cases that deal with security threats from Chinese apps or to counter misinformation from Pakistani sources.
However, when it involved removing content critical of itself, the government uses a confidentiality provision provided by section 69A of the IT Act 2000, said Medianama.
Social media companies are usually quick to comply with government notifications or court orders as they face the risk of losing their safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT Act.
“Losing a safe harbour may also lead to the criminal prosecution of executives,”said Malhotra. “Consequently, to mitigate the risk of losing safe harbour immunity, social media companies tend to comply with government requests to remove content overzealously.”
This leads to social media platforms prioritising retaining safe harbour over upholding freedom of speech and expression.
“In an environment where traditional media aspects have shrunk, this creates bigger challenges for press freedom and free speech rights,” said Choudhary.
(Samriddhi Sakunia is an Independent journalist based in New Delhi. She covers tech, human rights and politics.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.