What If India Bans Social Media? Life Without Google, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook

 

https://youtu.be/IicXjHeDS50

अगर भारत में सोशल मीडिया पर प्रतिबंध: गूगल, यूट्यूब, वॉट्सऐप, फेसबुक, इंस्टाग्राम... के बिना जीवन कैसा होगा?,  

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ER3nQFYzu/

नेपाल ने 26 सोशल प्लेटफॉर्म पर प्रतिबंध लगा दिया है - क्या भारत भी ऐसा कर सकता है?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOV84zEkZ7d/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

What If India Bans Social Media? Life Without Google, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook

https://x.com/PatrakarNManiar/status/1965042706457285064

Nepal blocks 26 social platforms - could India do the same?

Mumbai 08 – 09 – 2025, Correspondence : Nepal’s government this week ordered internet service providers to block 26 social platforms — including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, X and YouTube — after the companies failed to register under Kathmandu’s new rules. The move has triggered protests, legal challenges and fresh regional debate about how far governments may go to regulate or shut down global platforms. Could India do the same — block or ban US-based services such as Google, YouTube, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter/X? The short answer: legally possible in limited ways, politically and technically difficult at scale — and likely to face legal challenge and economic fallout. (Kathmandu Post, The Economic Times)

 

What happened in Nepal (quick facts)

• Nepal ordered ISPs to block 26 social media sites after the platforms declined to register local offices or comply with government directives. The ban was enforced in early September 2025 and drove protests from journalists and youth groups. (Kathmandu Post, The Economic Times)
• Kathmandu says the move enforces local registration, content accountability and taxation; critics say it is a disproportionate restriction on free expression.

India’s legal tools: can New Delhi order a country-wide block?

India has a clear legal framework that allows the central government to ask intermediaries and ISPs to block access to information on the internet under specific grounds:

• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — sets obligations for intermediaries (platforms) on due diligence, grievance redressal, traceability and local compliance. Platforms that want “safe-harbour” protections must follow these rules. (MeitY, PRS Legislative Research)
• Section 69A, Information Technology Act, 2000 — gives the central government power to issue directions to block public access to any information hosted on a computer resource, on grounds like sovereignty, security, public order, or to prevent incitement to an offence. Blocking orders under Section 69A are subject to a prescribed procedure (inter-ministerial review, reasons in writing; some safeguards exist in the Blocking Rules). (India Code, Info. Technology Law)

So legally: the central government can issue blocking directions. Recent practice shows New Delhi has used blocking powers to order content takedowns, account/handle blocks and temporary restrictions in specific situations — and platforms have pushed back in courts. A high-profile example: X (Twitter) said India ordered it to block thousands of accounts in July 2025 (including some Reuters accounts), triggering public outcry and litigation. (Reuters, The Economic Times)

Practical, legal and political limits on a blanket ban in India

1. Legal tests and court scrutiny. Blocking must meet statutory grounds (sovereignty, security, public order) and follow procedure. Courts have been asked to review and sometimes stayed blocking orders. Blanket shutdowns would face immediate legal challenges citing Article 19(1)(a) (free speech) and proportionality. (Constitutional Law and Philosophy, clt.nliu.ac.in)
2. Technical & economic complexity. Blocking a service widely used in India (Google/YouTube/Gmail/WhatsApp) would require cooperation from ISPs, app stores and mobile operators and would disrupt business, government services and millions of users. It would also harm the digital economy and investor confidence.
3. Diplomatic and trade fallout. Blocking major US services would risk diplomatic strain, potential retaliation, and could affect foreign investment and cloud/service availability.
4. Workarounds and fragmentation. Users can use VPNs, alternative apps, or mirror sites; blocking often creates an adversarial arms race that can be partially evaded.
5. Policy vs politics. While the law gives powers, governments weigh political cost: targeted takedowns (accounts, content) are more common than nation-scale bans because the latter have huge social and economic costs.

Bottom line: India can direct takedowns and targeted blocks under Section 69A and leverage the 2021 Rules to compel compliance, but a full nationwide ban of core US services would be legally contested, practically disruptive and politically fraught. (MeitY, India Code)

---

Impacts to watch if a government tries a large-scale ban

• Disruption to newsrooms, small businesses, gig economy workers and education.
• Rapid legal challenges and possible interim court reliefs. (Internet Freedom Foundation)
• Possible decline in digital investment and cloud services, and erosion of public trust in government digital policy.

---

How social media platforms usually respond

Register compliance teams, submit grievance reports, or partially comply with requests while challenging over-broad orders in court. Some platforms negotiate local representation or appoint compliance officers to preserve access. Transparency reports document takedown volumes under local laws. (Internet Freedom Foundation, MeitY)

Massive Irregularities Alleged in Mulund West, Shree Rameshwar Housing Society; Residents Cry Foul Over Redevelopment Push

Mumbai, August 28, 2025 – Allegations of large-scale financial mismanagement, unauthorized constructions, and an illegal redevelopment push have rocked Shree Rameshwar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society in Mulund (West), Mumbai.

In a detailed complaint addressed to the Maharashtra Housing Department, resident Damyanti E. Parmar has accused the society’s former secretary, Hariram Narayan Thakkar, of decades-long misuse of power and alleged collusion with officials in the Registrar’s office. The complaint also highlights serious lapses in the scrutiny of redevelopment permissions granted by the authorities.

A 37-Year Grip on Power

The society, developed in 1988, comprises four wings, 34 flats, and 10 shops. According to the complainant, Mr. Thakkar functioned as secretary for nearly 37 years, allegedly creating an atmosphere of fear among members while misusing his authority.

Financial Mismanagement

Despite regular maintenance collections, society accounts reportedly show a nil balance. Fixed deposits worth ₹14–15 lakh were allegedly encashed without authorization, while property tax arrears of nearly ₹12.3 lakh were settled using society funds without mandatory co-signatures. The complaint terms these actions as a “criminal breach of trust.”

Unauthorized Constructions & Alleged Extortion

Members allege that unauthorized extensions and structural alterations were permitted without BMC approval, reportedly in exchange for money. These acts, the complaint notes, violate provisions of the MMC Act, MRTP Act, and DCPR 2034.

Dubious Redevelopment Drive

Perhaps the most contentious issue is the society’s redevelopment process. Despite the building being just 37 years old and structurally sound, redevelopment efforts were allegedly initiated without:

• 70% members’ consent,
• Valid AGM/SGM resolutions, and
• Proper tendering through national dailies.

Instead, bogus tenders were allegedly manipulated to favour a particular builder. Shockingly, society funds were even used to book a hotel on August 31, 2025, for redevelopment discussions—without members’ approval.

Registrar’s Office Under Scanner

The complaint also points to alleged dereliction of duty within the Registrar’s office. A tender-related application, signed solely by the secretary—who had already resigned—was accepted without verification. Permissions were granted, and officers were deputed for the society’s SGM, raising suspicions of “collusion and corruption.”

Legal Violations Cited

The allegations, if proven, could attract provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and even the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Calls for Immediate Action

Parmar has demanded:

• Immediate cancellation of the redevelopment process,
• A full-fledged audit and seizure of society records,
• A departmental probe into Registrar’s office officials, and
• Assurance that redevelopment proceeds only with lawful compliance and 70% member consent.

“This is not a mere irregularity but a systematic fraud running for decades,” Parmar states in her complaint, warning that 34 families and 10 shop owners stand to suffer irreparable harm if urgent action is not taken.

Copies of the complaint have also been forwarded to the Commissioner for Co-operation, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mulund Police, and BMC authorities.