#FactCheck-Mosque fire in India? False, it's from Indonesia

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

Executive Summary:

A photographer breaking down in tears in a viral photo is not connected to the Ram Mandir opening. Social media users are sharing a collage of images of the recently dedicated Lord Ram idol at the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, along with a claimed shot of the photographer crying at the sight of the deity. A Facebook post that posts this video says, "Even the cameraman couldn't stop his emotions." The CyberPeace Research team found that the event happened during the AFC Asian Cup football match in 2019. During a match between Iraq and Qatar, an Iraqi photographer started crying since Iraq had lost and was out of the competition.

Claims:

The photographer in the widely shared images broke down in tears at seeing the icon of Lord Ram during the Ayodhya Ram Mandir's consecration. The Collage was also shared by many users in other Social Media like X, Reddit, Facebook. An Facebook user shared and  the Caption of the Post reads, 

‍

Fact Check:

CyberPeace Research team reverse image searched the Photographer, and it landed to several memes from where the picture was taken, from there we landed to a Pinterest Post where it reads, “An Iraqi photographer as his team is knocked out of the Asian Cup of Nations”

Taking an indication from this we did some keyword search and tried to find the actual news behind this Image. We landed at the official Asian Cup X (formerly Twitter) handle where the image was shared 5 years ago on 24 Jan, 2019. The Post reads, “Passionate. Emotional moment for an Iraqi photographer during the Round of 16 clash against ! #AsianCup2019”

We are now confirmed about the News and the origin of this image. To be noted that while we were investigating the Fact Check we also found several other Misinformation news with the Same photographer image and different Post Captions which was all a Misinformation like this one. 

Conclusion:

The recent Viral Image of the Photographer claiming to be associated with Ram Mandir Opening is Misleading, the Image of the Photographer was a 5 years old image where the Iraqi Photographer was seen Crying during the Asian Cup Football Competition but not of recent Ram Mandir Opening. Netizens are advised not to believe and share such misinformation posts around Social Media.

• Claim: A person in the widely shared images broke down in tears at seeing the icon of Lord Ram during the Ayodhya Ram Mandir's consecration.
• Claimed on: Facebook, X, Reddit 
• Fact Check: Fake

Introduction

Recently, a Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services was published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The paper explores several OTT regulation-related challenges and solicits input from stakeholders on a suggested regulatory framework. We’ll summarise the paper’s main conclusions in this blog.

Structure of the Paper

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services and Selective Banning of OTT Services intends to solicit comments and recommendations from stakeholders about the regulation of OTT services in India. The paper is broken up into five chapters that cover the introduction and background, issues with regulatory mechanisms for OTT communication services, issues with the selective banning of OTT services, a summary of the issues for consultation, and an overview of international practices on the topic. Written comments from interested parties are requested and may be sent electronically to the Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licencing) at TRAI. These comments will also be posted on the TRAI website.

Overview of the Paper

• Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

• The first chapter of the essay introduces the subject of OTT communication services and argues why regulatory frameworks are necessary. The chapter also gives a general outline of the topics and the paper’s organisation that will be covered in the following chapters.

• Chapter 2: Examination of the Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top Communication Services

• The second chapter of the essay looks at the problems with OTT communication service regulation. It talks about the many kinds of OTT services and how they affect the conventional telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the regulatory issues raised by OTT services and the various strategies used by various nations to address them.

• Chapter 3: Examination of the Issues Related to Selective Banning of OTT Services

• The final chapter of the essay looks at the problems of selectively outlawing OTT services. It analyses the justifications for government restrictions on OTT services as well as the possible effects of such restrictions on consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the legal and regulatory structures that determine how OTT services are prohibited in various nations.

• Chapter 4: International Practices

• An overview of global OTT communication service best practices is given in the paper’s fourth chapter. It talks about the various regulatory strategies used by nations throughout the world and how they affect consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the difficulties regulators encounter when trying to create efficient regulatory frameworks for OTT services.

• Chapter 5: Issues for Consultation

• This chapter is the spirit of the consultation paper as it covers the points and questions for consultation. This chapter has been classified into two sub-sections – Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanisms for OTT Communication Services and Issues Related to the Selective Banning of OTT Services. The inputs will be entirely focused on these sub headers, and the scope, extent, and ambit of the consultation paper rests on these questions and necessary inputs.

Conclusion

An important publication that aims to address the regulatory issues raised by OTT services is the Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top Communication Services. The paper offers a thorough analysis of the problems with OTT service regulation and requests input from stakeholders on the suggested regulatory structure. In order to make sure that the regulatory framework is efficient and advantageous for everyone, it is crucial for all stakeholders to offer their opinion on the document.