Apple’s recent decision to remove the offline messaging application Bitchat from its India App Store has sparked significant discussion in the tech community. This action follows a request from the Ministry of Information Technology, as confirmed by developer Jack Dorsey on Saturday. The app’s removal comes in the wake of reports indicating that demonstrators at Jantar Mantar utilized Bitchat to communicate during protests against alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, particularly during periods of internet restrictions imposed at the protest site.
As protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar unfolded in Delhi and Mumbai, the relevance of Bitchat became increasingly apparent. This open-source, decentralized messaging application enables users in close proximity to communicate without relying on mobile data, Wi-Fi, or centralized servers. Utilizing Bluetooth Low Energy technology, Bitchat allows devices to relay messages, thereby extending the network’s reach. Notably, the app ensures privacy through end-to-end encryption and does not require users to create accounts or provide persistent identifiers.
While the removal from the App Store does not erase Bitchat from existing devices, it effectively halts new downloads and security updates. Earlier this year, the Union Home Ministry had already requested GitHub to remove Bitchat’s repositories, citing security concerns. Dorsey shared a notice from Apple’s App Review team, which stated that the app would be removed due to content deemed illegal in India.
Legal Grounds for Removal
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to facilitate this takedown. This provision allows the government to block public access to information on grounds including national security and public order. The notice from Apple indicated that the developer could reach out to the ministry for further clarification regarding the removal and the applicable Indian laws.
Concerns Over Free Speech
In response to the removal, the Internet Freedom Foundation, a digital rights organization, has labeled the action as unconstitutional. They argue that Section 69A is intended to block unlawful information, not to penalize a messaging platform for operating during internet shutdowns. The organization emphasized that the ability for citizens to communicate with one another during such shutdowns should not be restricted under either Section 69A or Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
The Internet Freedom Foundation further criticized the lack of specificity in the notice regarding the content considered illegal and the absence of a published blocking order from the Indian government. They have called for the Ministry of Information Technology to disclose the blocking order, the rationale behind it, and the proceedings of the committee involved. Moreover, they advocate for the withdrawal of the directive, asserting that any unlawful use should be addressed through targeted legal proceedings rather than a blanket removal of a communication tool.
Edited by Tanya Shrivastava.
