Discuss the constitutional validity and practical impact of executive advisories to social media intermediaries, with reference to recent takedowns during public protests. (15M)

In October 2026, people across India protested against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. During these protests, MeitY sent advisories to platforms on 8 and 10 October. They asked for "enhanced diligence" over content about ongoing public events [1]. Soon after, posts and accounts on Instagram, Facebook and X began showing "Your post is unavailable in India" [1]. On paper these advisories do not bind anyone, but platforms treat them as binding.

Constitutional validity

Arguments in favour

• Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on speech for public order and to stop incitement. False content during a protest can lead to violence.
• Section 79 of the IT Act and the IT Rules, 2021 require platforms to show due diligence. Advisories only explain what that duty means [1].
• The Karnataka High Court upheld the Sahyog notice system in X Corp v. Union of India (2025). It said social media cannot be left in "anarchic freedom".

Concerns

• Not "law": Article 19(2) allows restrictions only "by law". An advisory has no statutory backing and Parliament never reviews it. That stretches delegated legislation too far.
• Bypasses safeguards: Advisories skip the Section 69A process of written reasons and committee review. The Supreme Court relied on that process when it upheld blocking in Shreya Singhal (2015).
• Vagueness: A phrase like "enhanced diligence" is imprecise. Shreya Singhal struck down Section 66A for the same flaw.

Practical impact

Positive

• Platforms respond faster to deepfakes, impersonation and rumours. The amended Rules cut the time to remove content from 36 hours to 3 hours [2].

Negative

• Over-removal: Short deadlines and the fear of losing safe harbour push platforms towards automated moderation. Satire, news and whole accounts were taken down [1].
• Opacity: The notices do not say who ordered the removal or why. Users have nothing concrete to appeal against before Grievance Appellate Committees or High Courts [1].
• Chilling effect: Criticism of the CEC, a constitutional authority, was affected most. This hurts trust in electoral debate [1].

Executive advisories serve a real need for speed, but because they are informal they sit badly with Article 19's demand for restrictions "by law". The way forward:

• send binding orders through Section 69A;
• make notices say who ordered the removal and why, with an order number, as the UNESCO Guidelines (2023) recommend [3];
• set longer deadlines for political speech than for deepfakes;
• require independent audits of moderation algorithms [3].

Together, these steps would protect public order while keeping Article 19(1)(a) and free debate about elections intact.