ഇന്ത്യയിൽ ബിറ്റ്ചാറ്റ് ആപ്പ് നിരോധനം: നടപടിയെ ഭരണഘടനാ വിരുദ്ധമെന്ന് വിശേഷിപ്പിച്ച് ഇന്റർനെറ്റ് ഫ്രീഡം ഫൗണ്ടേഷൻ

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), an advocacy organisation, criticised Apple's decision to remove BitChat from App Store as "unconstitutional". The organisation said, "Section 69A permits the blocking of unlawful information, not of a messenger for working during internet shutdowns."

Bitchat is an offline messaging application associated with Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey.

The IFF's statement came after Jack Dorsey said Apple removed Bitchat from the India App Store following a takedown demand from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

On Saturday, Dorsey shared a screenshot of Apple's notice on X, stating that the "government of India officially removes Bitchat from the App Store."

The notice records that BitChat has been removed from the India App Store "per demand from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology", issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the ground that the application "includes content that is illegal in India."

The notice adds that BitChat's TestFlight builds are no longer available for testing in India.

The IIF said the notice "does not identify the content said to be illegal or the ground under Section 69A invoked."

"The blocking order has not been published. The Internet Freedom Foundation condemns the order and calls for its immediate publication and withdrawal," the IIF added.

In a lengthy post, the IFF made four demands:

1. MeitY must publish the blocking order, the ground invoked and the record of the committee's proceedings, and serve the developers with a copy and an opportunity of hearing.

2. The direction must be withdrawn. Any specific unlawful use must be met with targeted proceedings under due process, not the removal of a communications tool for everyone.

3. Apple must disclose the demand in its transparency reporting and notify its users in India, and must state whether parallel directions have been received in respect of other app stores.

4. The secrecy of the blocking regime must end. The Blocking Rules, 2009 should be amended to require publication of orders and notice to originators, without awaiting the outcome of the pending constitutional challenge.

The Internet Freedom Foundation will file applications under the Right to Information Act seeking a copy of the order, and stands ready to assist the developers and affected users in India.

"The State's actual objection stands recorded in the notices the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre issued on 23 July 2026 to GitHub, Google and Apple against BitChat, Briar and Bridgefy which stated that such applications work even during internet shutdowns and hamper lawful interception, attribution and traceability," the IIF claims.

"Those notices, issued under Section 79(3)(b), were reportedly withdrawn after public disclosure. The same end has now been pursued through Section 69A. The objection is to the capability of an application, not to the content it transmits. A citizen's ability to speak to another citizen while the State has switched the internet off is not a ground of restriction under Section 69A or Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the IIF said.

The organisation said Section 69A "survived constitutional scrutiny in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) because of its safeguards which included the need for a reasoned, recorded order, committee review, and a hearing to the originator under Rule 8 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, which the Delhi High Court enforced in Tanul Thakur v. Union of India (2022)."

"Further, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) requires that orders restricting fundamental rights be published and adopt the least restrictive measure. However, it appears in this instance, each safeguard has been evaded," the IIF said.

"A secret order blocking an entire application, rather than any identified unlawful information, is the most restrictive and disproprotionate measure available. Further, the confidentiality claimed under Rule 16 cannot defeat the right to challenge an order, and the constitutionality of this blocking regime is itself pending consideration before the Supreme Court," it added.

It said that while removal from the App Store does not delete BitChat from phones, "it stops new downloads and security updates, leaving existing users on unpatched versions, and it ends security testing in India through TestFlight."

"During the Jantar Mantar protests, when mobile internet was suspended and jammers were deployed, Bluetooth mesh messaging was a channel of last resort through which young people coordinated their safety. To our knowledge, Apple has removed BitChat on a government's demand in only one other country. This is in China, in April this year," it added.

Apple said the application would be removed because it included content that was illegal in India and did not comply with its App Review Guidelines.

However, the notice does not specify what particular content was considered illegal, nor does it detail the specific grounds cited by MeitY. Apple directed the developer to contact the ministry for further information.

Bitchat is a decentralised offline messaging app designed to allow people to communicate without cellular networks, Wi-Fi, phone numbers or a central messaging server. Its defining feature is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network.

When two users are within Bluetooth range, their phones can communicate directly. Messages can then be relayed from one nearby device to another, effectively creating a chain -- or "mesh" -- that can extend communication beyond the normal range of a single Bluetooth connection. Earlier documentation described messages travelling across multiple "hops" between devices.

The system is particularly notable because internet connectivity is not required for its offline messaging mode.

Bitchat also supports encrypted private messaging and does not require conventional user accounts or phone-number registration. Its current App Store description says it can also use the decentralised Nostr protocol when internet connectivity is available.

The app had already attracted regulatory attention in India. In July, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) issued a notice seeking restrictions on Bitchat's GitHub repositories, citing concerns that its architecture could make lawful interception and attribution more difficult and allow communication to continue during internet shutdowns.

Apple has said Bitchat has been removed from the India App Store while remaining available in other territories selected by its developer. The company also said that the TestFlight version of the application would no longer function for testing in India.