Shutdown-Proof Messaging? India Pulls The Plug

India ordered Apple to pull Jack Dorsey’s offline messaging app Bitchat from its App Store, and the government’s own takedown notice never names a single illegal post, file, or message the app supposedly carried.

Quick Take

Apple removed Bitchat from India’s App Store after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) ordered it under Section 69A of India’s Information Technology Act.
Apple’s notice said the app “included content that is illegal in India,” but no specific illegal content has been publicly identified.
The app’s Android version and website also became inaccessible in India, and earlier this year the government targeted Bitchat’s code repositories on GitHub.
Digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation calls the order unconstitutional, saying it targets the app’s shutdown-resistant design rather than actual illegal material.
The case fits a broader pattern of India using Section 69A to block entire apps and platforms, not just individual pieces of content.

Apple Confirms The Removal Under Government Order

Apple sent app developer Jack Dorsey a notice saying Bitchat would disappear from India’s App Store “per demand from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology” and because “it includes content that is illegal in India.” Dorsey shared the notice publicly on October 3. Multiple news outlets, including TechCrunch and Moneycontrol, confirmed the same wording and cited Section 69A as the legal basis for the order.

Apple said the app would stay available in every other country where Bitchat is sold. That detail matters. It shows Apple did not pull the app because of a global policy violation. The company acted only because a foreign government demanded it, raising questions about how far a single country’s request can reach into a global app marketplace.

What Section 69A Actually Allows

Section 69A lets India’s central government order the blocking of public access to digital information when officials decide it threatens things like national security or public order. Legal experts describe the law as broad enough to cover “any information,” including, as one recent court ruling found, an entire app or platform rather than a single file. India’s government used this same law last year to uphold a nationwide block on the messaging app Telegram, affecting more than 150 million users.

The law also comes with built-in safeguards. Officials are supposed to give written reasons for a block and follow a formal review process under the 2009 Blocking Rules. Whether MeitY followed those steps with Bitchat is unclear, because the underlying government order has not been made public in any reporting so far.

No Named Illegal Content, Critics Say

The core problem critics raise is simple: nobody has pointed to what, exactly, was illegal. A bulletin from the National Law School of India’s tech-law forum says an earlier order against Bitchat “failed to identify any illegal text, data, or content” and instead focused on the app’s ability to work without internet access or central servers. The Internet Freedom Foundation made a similar point months earlier, calling a related GitHub takedown order “unconstitutional and authoritarian” for the same reason. Bitchat works by sending messages directly between nearby phones using Bluetooth, without needing the internet at all. That design lets people communicate during blackouts or government-ordered shutdowns. Reporting from July describes a government document arguing this exact feature could “facilitate unlawful activity,” suggesting officials may be more worried about the technology’s resistance to shutdowns than about any specific message sent on it.

A Pattern Bigger Than One App

This is not an isolated episode. India has repeatedly used Section 69A to reach whole platforms, from the Telegram ban to a pending case involving the gambling-blocking app Gamban, where a court recently told regulators to decide whether to lift the block only after giving the company a proper hearing. The recurring theme is a government that says it is enforcing the law, while critics say it is silencing entire tools instead of targeted bad actors.

For users on both sides of the debate, the unanswered question is the same: if an app is truly carrying illegal content, authorities should be able to say what it is. When a government blocks a tool used by journalists, activists, and ordinary people during shutdowns without naming the violation, it feeds a wider, shared worry that power is being used quietly, without the accountability citizens expect from their institutions.

JUST IN: Bitchat removed from App Store and Play Store after MeitY order

Apple email confirms removal under Section 69A of the IT Act.
Bitchat also blocked on Google Play and its website in India.

— snipy.in (@snipy_in) October 3, 2026

Apple has not publicly explained whether it pushed back on the order before complying, and MeitY has not issued its own public statement laying out the evidence behind the block. Until one of those records surfaces, the dispute will likely keep playing out the way it has so far, through dueling notices, advocacy statements, and reporting that fills in gaps a formal government filing would otherwise answer directly.