BackLAW
Cyber Crime Wing notice for blocking social media posts draws criticism
On May 8, 2026, the Tamil Nadu Cyber Crime Wing directed X Corp to block 18 URLs/posts within three hours, citing IT Act intermediary liability provisions and IT Rules 2021. The notices targeted content alleged to be critical of TVK and the Chief Minister, drawing criticism over freedom of speech. Officials described takedowns as routine, while critics warned of democratic risks.
Why It Matters
The incident highlights tensions between law-enforcement use of intermediary liability rules and freedom of expression online, especially around politically sensitive content and government criticism.
Timeline
2 Events
May 11, 2026: Article reporting the takedown notice published
May 11, 2026
The article reporting the May 8 takedown notice was published on May 11, 2026 at 07:44 pm IST. It notes criticism from netizens and media figures, including Thirupathy’s remark about the action being harassment and a call for withdrawal, and comments from Dinesh alleging a TVK complaint against him. It also cites Spark Pluz digital editor K. Rajasekar, who condemns mass reporting and removal of critical content, while senior Cyber Crime Wing officials maintain takedown notices are routine enforcement.
May 8, 2026: TN Cyber Crime Wing issues takedown notice to X Corp
May 8, 2026
The Cyber Crime Wing directed X Corp to remove or disable access to 18 URLs/posts within three hours, invoking intermediary liability provisions under the Information Technology Act and Information Technology Rules, 2021. The notice cited violations under Section 189 (Unlawful Assembly) of the BNS and stated a request had been received from the Superintendent of Police, Social Media Cell, regarding posts containing provocative remarks capable of inciting public unrest. It alleged the posts encouraged unlawful assemblies that could affect law and order and potentially lead to loss of life and damage to public property. Invoking Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, the notice alleged the URLs were being used to commit acts relating to decency, morality, and defamation. The authorised officer directed immediate removal or disabling of access and warned that failure to act could expose the intermediary to prosecution.