#FactCheck - Viral Claim of Highway in J&K Proven Misleading

Introduction

Recently in July 2026, India's Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs quietly tried to do something almost no government has managed before: switch off an app that doesn't need the internet to work.  On July 23, 2026, I4C sent takedown notices to Google, Apple and GitHub, ordering them to pull three offline messaging apps – like BitChat, Briar and Bridgefy – from the Play Store, App Store and GitHub's code repository, respectively, giving a three-hour deadline. The notices followed a period of student-led demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, associated with a group "Cockroach Janata Party," a period that also saw a mobile internet shutdown in parts of central Delhi. When Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who built and open-sourced BitChat, publicised the GitHub notice on X, the episode made international news. Google and Apple got near-identical orders the same night, and telecom operators were reportedly told, and then just as quickly untold, to block the apps at the network level. By July 29, all three apps were still live on both app stores, and BitChat's code was still on GitHub. This incident is worth unpacking carefully, because it sits at the intersection of three things most people care about but rarely see explained together: how this technology actually works, what the law actually allows, and why an app can be "banned" on paper while still working perfectly on your phone.

What makes these apps different

Ordinary apps like WhatsApp or Telegram are centralised: your message travels from your phone to a company's server, and then to the recipient's phone. Block or seize the server, and communication stops. BitChat, Briar and Bridgefy are built differently. They use Bluetooth mesh networking, a system where nearby phones talk directly to each other, and each device also relays messages onwards to phones further away, like a bucket brigade. No message ever touches a central server. Briar adds a further layer by routing traffic over Tor, an anonymity network, when internet access is available, and falls back to Bluetooth or Wi-Fi Direct when it isn't. Bridgefy is tuned for larger crowds, useful during concerts, natural disasters, or protests where thousands of phones are packed into a small area and cellular networks buckle under the load. This design, often called decentralised or peer-to-peer communication, is precisely why these apps are useful during disasters and precisely why they worry law enforcement: they keep working when the internet doesn't, whether that's because a cyclone knocked out cell towers or because the government itself ordered a shutdown.

The legal machinery behind a takedown notice

India's power to block online content mainly comes from Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which lets the central government order blocking on grounds like sovereignty, public order or preventing incitement to an offence  but only through a defined process set out in the IT (Blocking) Rules, 2009: a designated officer, a review committee, and recorded written reasons. The Supreme Court examined this exact provision in its landmark 2015 ruling, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the judgement is best remembered for striking down the vague "offensive speech" law under Section 66A, it separately upheld Section 69A specifically because it came with procedural guardrails, a reasoned order, an opportunity to be heard, and the possibility of judicial review that stopped it from becoming an unchecked censorship tool. The July 23 notices, however, reportedly leaned on a different lever: Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. That provision governs when an intermediary loses its legal immunity ("safe harbour") for user content if it fails to act on a government or court order,  a mechanism built for content takedowns, not necessarily for pulling an entire app off a store shelf within three hours. Legal commentators have flagged this as significant, since Shreya Singhal itself read down Section 79(3)(b) to require action only pursuant to a court order or a properly authorised government direction, not an informal notice. This isn't the first time a mesh-messaging app has run into this machinery. In 2023, following an I4C request, the government blocked Briar and thirteen other apps in Jammu and Kashmir under Section 69A, citing use, the first known instance of Section 69A being used for a regional block. Briar's developers challenged this in the Delhi High Court; in 2024, the court dismissed the challenge, holding that principles of natural justice can give way in matters of national security.

Why you can't easily switch off a mesh network

Here's the technical wrinkle that made the July order largely symbolic: removing an app from the Play Store stops new downloads, but it does nothing to phones that already have it installed, and it does nothing at all to the Bluetooth radios exchanging messages between those phones. Unlike an internet shutdown, which works by controlling the pipes that all traffic must pass through, a mesh network has no chokepoint, no server to seize, no IP address to blacklist, and no single company to compel.

GitHub, for its part, said it followed its standard process of notifying the account holder and offering an appeal before taking any action, which is one reason BitChat's source code stayed publicly accessible throughout. Within a day, officials reportedly told the companies orally that enforcement wasn't necessary after all, though no public clarification or official document has been released explaining why the notices were issued or withdrawn.

Two legitimate, competing interests

None of this means the government's underlying worry is baseless. Law enforcement agencies genuinely lose visibility when communication moves off networks they can lawfully intercept, and coordination of unlawful assembly or violence is a real concern during volatile protests. 

The transparency gap

The single biggest problem with how this played out isn't the underlying concern  it's the absence of a public, reasoned order. Under the blocking rules, disclosure is restricted, and courts, including the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, have said that when access is restricted, reasons must be recorded and, where possible, made available. A three-hour notice, issued and then informally withdrawn without explanation, sits uneasily with that standard. A more durable approach,  one that CyberPeace and other digital-rights researchers have called for, would combine clearly identified statutory authority; published (even if redacted) reasoning; proportionality review; and investment in lawful digital forensics, rather than blanket app-store takedowns that decentralised technology is, by design, built to survive.

CyberPeace's policy recommendations

Alongside the legal analysis above, CyberPeace puts forward a ten-point framework for how India should approach decentralised communication technologies going forward, instead of defaulting to blanket takedowns:

• Strengthen transparency in blocking decisions
• Ensure statutory clarity
• Apply legality, necessity and proportionality
• Differentiate technology from misuse
• Invest in advanced investigative capabilities
• Establish a multi-stakeholder advisory mechanism
• Develop a framework for emerging decentralised technologies
• Promote responsible innovation
• Enhance public awareness
• Foster international cooperation

‍

Conclusion

The referred incident illustrates that regulating decentralised technologies requires more than swift takedown notices. As communication networks become increasingly resilient and distributed, effective governance must combine legal certainty, technical realism, transparency, and proportionate enforcement. India's challenge is not simply to regulate emerging technologies but to develop a kind of regulatory framework that safeguards national security and the constitutional values of privacy, free expression, and due process.

Sources

• MediaNama — Bitchat was not the only mesh-messaging app targeted by a government takedown notice
• Outlook Business — Beyond GitHub, Govt Also Directed Google To Take Down Bitchat, Briar And Bridgefy
• The Wire — Government Asks GitHub to Remove Bluetooth Messaging App Bitchat Over Concerns of 'Misuse'
• The Tech Trace (Substack) — The Indian govt's crackdown on Bluetooth-enabled messaging apps that wasn't?
• Bar and Bench — Section 69A IT Act and the expanding architecture of digital censorship in India
• Supreme Court Observer — X relies on 'Shreya Singhal' in arbitrary content-blocking case in Karnataka HC
• LiveLaw — Internet Freedom, Shreya Singhal v Union of India, IT Act, Blocking Rules 2009
• Manupatra — Full text, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
• Open Magazine — CJP Protests at Jantar Mantar: How Offline Mesh Messaging Apps Powered a Network of Resistance

Introduction

In the boundless world of the internet—a digital frontier rife with both the promise of connectivity and the peril of deception—a new spectre stealthily traverses the electronic pathways, casting a shadow of fear and uncertainty. This insidious entity, cloaked in the mantle of supposed authority, preys upon the unsuspecting populace navigating the virtual expanse. And in the heart of India's vibrant tapestry of diverse cultures and ceaseless activity, Mumbai stands out—a sprawling metropolis of dreams and dynamism, yet also the stage for a chilling saga, a cyber charade of foul play and fraud.

The city's relentless buzz and hum were punctuated by a harrowing tale that unwound within the unassuming confines of a Kharghar residence, where a 46-year-old individual's brush with this digital demon would unfold. His typical day veered into the remarkable as his laptop screen lit up with an ominous pop-up, infusing his routine with shock and dread. This deceiving popup, masquerading as an official communication from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), demanded an exorbitant fine of Rs 33,850 for ostensibly browsing adult content—an offence he had not committed.

The Cyber Deception

This tale of deceit and psychological warfare is not unique, nor is it the first of its kind. It finds echoes in the tragic narrative that unfurled in September 2023, far south in the verdant land of Kerala, where a young life was tragically cut short. A 17-year-old boy from Kozhikode, caught in the snare of similar fraudulent claims of NCRB admonishment, was driven to the extreme despair of taking his own life after being coerced to dispense Rs 30,000 for visiting an unauthorised website, as the pop-up falsely alleged.

Sewn with a seam of dread and finesse, the pop-up which appeared in another recent case from Navi Mumbai, highlights the virtual tapestry of psychological manipulation, woven with threatening threads designed to entrap and frighten. In this recent incident a 46-year-old Kharghar resident was left in shock when he got a pop-up on a laptop screen warning him to pay Rs 33,850 fine for surfing a porn website. This message appeared from fake website of NCRB created to dupe people. Pronouncing that the user has engaged in browsing the Internet for some activities, it delivers an ultimatum: Pay the fine within six hours, or face the critical implications of a criminal case. The panacea it offers is simple—settle the demanded amount and the shackles on the browser shall be lifted.

It was amidst this web of lies that the man from Kharghar found himself entangled. The story, as retold by his brother, an IT professional, reveals the close brush with disaster that was narrowly averted. His brother's panicked call, and the rush of relief upon realising the scam, underscores the ruthless efficiency of these cyber predators. They leverage sophisticated deceptive tactics, even specifying convenient online payment methods to ensnare their prey into swift compliance.

A glimmer of reason pierced through the narrative as Maharashtra State cyber cell special inspector general Yashasvi Yadav illuminated the fraudulent nature of such claims. With authoritative clarity, he revealed that no legitimate government agency would solicit fines in such an underhanded fashion. Rather, official procedures involve FIRs or court trials—a structured route distant from the scaremongering of these online hoaxes.

Expert Take

Concurring with this perspective, cyber experts facsimiles. By tapping into primal fears and conjuring up grave consequences, the fraudsters follow a time-worn strategy, cloaking their ill intentions in the guise of governmental or legal authority—a phantasm of legitimacy that prompts hasty financial decisions.

To pierce the veil of this deception, D. Sivanandhan, the former Mumbai police commissioner, categorically denounced the absurdity of the hoax. With a voice tinged by experience and authority, he made it abundantly clear that the NCRB's role did not encompass the imposition of fines without due process of law—a cornerstone of justice grossly misrepresented by the scam's premise.

New Lesson 

This scam, a devilish masquerade given weight by deceit, might surge with the pretence of novelty, but its underpinnings are far from new. The manufactured pop-ups that propagate across corners of the internet issue fabricated pronouncements, feigned lockdowns of browsers, and the spectre of being implicated in taboo behaviours. The elaborate ruse doesn't halt at mere declarations; it painstakingly fabricates a semblance of procedural legitimacy by preemptively setting penalties and detailing methods for immediate financial redress.

Yet another dimension of the scam further bolsters the illusion—the ominous ticking clock set for payment, endowing the fraud with an urgency that can disorient and push victims towards rash action. With a spurious 'Payment Details' section, complete with options to pay through widely accepted credit networks like Visa or MasterCard, the sham dangles the false promise of restored access, should the victim acquiesce to their demands.

Conclusion 

In an era where the demarcation between illusion and reality is nebulous, the impetus for individual vigilance and scepticism is ever-critical. The collective consciousness, the shared responsibility we hold as inhabitants of the digital domain, becomes paramount to withstand the temptation of fear-inducing claims and to dispel the shadows cast by digital deception. It is only through informed caution, critical scrutiny, and a steadfast refusal to capitulate to intimidation that we may successfully unmask these virtual masquerades and safeguard the integrity of our digital existence.

References:

• https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2023/09/29/kozhikode-boy-dies-by-suicide-after-online-fraud-threatens-him-for-visiting-unauthorised-website.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/pay-rs-33-8k-fine-for-surfing-porn-warns-fake-ncrb-pop-up-on-screen/articleshow/106610006.cms
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/people-who-watch-porn-receiving-a-warning-pop-up-do-not-pay-it-is-a-scam-1903829-2022-01-24

Executive Summary:

‍
A viral social media message claims that the Indian government is offering a ₹5,000 gift to citizens in celebration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s birthday. However, this claim is false. The message is part of a deceptive scam that tricks users into transferring money via UPI, rather than receiving any benefit. Fact-checkers have confirmed that this is a fraud using misleading graphics and fake links to lure people into authorizing payments to scammers.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍

‍
The post circulating widely on platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook states that every Indian citizen is eligible to receive ₹5,000 as a gift from the current Union Government on the Prime Minister’s birthday. The message post includes visuals of PM Modi, BJP party symbols, and UPI app interfaces such as PhonePe or Google Pay, and urges users to click on the BJP Election Symbol [Lotus] or on the provided link  to receive the gift directly into their bank account.

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

Our research indicates that there is no official announcement or credible article supporting the claim that the government is offering ₹5,000 under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY). This claim does not appear on any official government websites or verified scheme listings.

‍

‍

‍

While the message was crafted to appear legitimate, it was in fact misleading. The intent was to deceive users into initiating a UPI payment rather than receiving one, thereby putting them at financial risk.

‍

A screen popped up showing a request to pay ₹686 to an unfamiliar UPI ID. When the ‘Pay ₹686’ button was tapped, the app asked for the UPI PIN—clearly indicating that this would have authorised a payment straight from the user’s bank account to the scammer’s.

‍

We advise the public to verify such claims through official sources before taking any action.

Our research indicated that the claim in the viral post is false and part of a fraudulent UPI money scam. 

‍

‍

Clicking the link that went with the viral Facebook post, it took us to a website

https://wh1449479[.]ispot[.]cc/with a somewhat odd domain name of 'ispot.cc', which is certainly not a government-related or commonly known domain name. On the website, we observed images that featured a number of unauthorized visuals, including a Prime Minister Narendra Modi image, a Union Minister and BJP President J.P. Nadda image, the national symbol, the BJP symbol, and the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana logo. It looked like they were using these visuals intentionally to convince users that the website was legitimate. 

‍

Conclusion:

‍
The assertion that the Indian government is handing out ₹5,000 to all citizens is totally false and should be reported as a scam. The message uses the trust related to government schemes, tricking users into sending money through UPI to criminals. They recommend that individuals do not click on links or respond to any such message about obtaining a government gift prior to verification. If you or a friend has fallen victim to this fraud, they are urged to report it immediately to your bank, and report it through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (https://cybercrime.gov.in) or contact the cyber helpline at 1930. They also recommend always checking messages like this through their official government website first.

‍

• Claim: The Modi Government is distributing ₹5,000 to citizens through UPI apps
• Claimed On:  Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍