India orders GitHub to remove Jack Dorsey’s Bitchat repositories

The notice, numbered 11072601011432, cited Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, alongside Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021. Digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation said the order also warned GitHub that noncompliance could expose it to a loss of legal protection and possible criminal proceedings.

Dorsey made the previously unpublished directive public on July 24 as authorities restricted communications around an ongoing student protest in central New Delhi. Responding to the demand, the former Twitter chief wrote that “the Government of India does not like technologies like Bitchat and wants it taken down.”

Authorities had suspended mobile internet within a 1.5-kilometer radius of Jantar Mantar from 4 p.m. until midnight on July 23, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs order reported by the Times of India. Police had also activated mobile jammers near the protest area a day earlier.

Led by the Cockroach Janta Party, the demonstrations concern alleged irregularities in the 2026 NEET examination and demand changes to India’s examination system. The Times of India reported that some participants began using Bluetooth-based messaging services after the temporary network restrictions took effect.

GitHub received three hours to remove the code

I4C based its security concerns on Bitchat’s ability to carry messages without mobile service, internet access or centralized infrastructure. Because the app does not require accounts, telephone numbers or persistent user identities, the agency argued that its architecture obstructs lawful interception, user attribution and criminal investigations.

In its notice, I4C alleged that decentralized communication platforms could support unlawful assemblies, violent protests, misinformation, radicalization and criminal conspiracies. The authority also cited the risk of misuse by terrorist organizations, organized crime groups and cybercriminals seeking to communicate during legally imposed network restrictions, according to the Times of India.

Besides the intermediary rules used to compel GitHub, I4C alleged violations of Sections 43, 84B and 84C of the IT Act. The notice also referred to Section 61, read with Sections 196 and 197, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Times of India reported.

IFF challenged both the legal basis and scope of the action. In a July 24 statement, the organization described the blocking of Bitchat’s code as “unconstitutional and authoritarian,” arguing that Section 79 governs the conditions under which online intermediaries retain protection from liability for third-party material.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, IFF maintained that Section 79 is not an independent blocking power. The group said the notice targeted an entire software project without identifying a specific message, file or other piece of unlawful content.

SFLC.in founder Mishi Choudhary raised a similar objection, telling Moneycontrol that Section 79 is separate from Section 69A, India’s statutory process for blocking online material. According to Choudhary, Section 79 does not allow the government to declare a full software project illegal or punish GitHub merely for hosting its code.

Bitchat remains usable after a repository takedown

Bitchat routes messages between nearby devices over Bluetooth Low Energy, allowing each participating phone to relay data to another device in the mesh. Its GitHub documentation states that messages can travel across as many as seven hops without an internet connection.

The project also supports end-to-end encrypted private messages, automatic peer discovery, and an emergency wipe feature. For online communications, its dual-transport system can use the decentralized Nostr protocol, while the local Bluetooth layer continues working independently when regular networks fail.

Removing the repositories would make the original source code and official release files harder to obtain through GitHub, but it would not remotely disable copies already installed on users’ phones. Technology expert Deepak Gupta told Moneycontrol that the order would also leave copies hosted elsewhere unaffected.

IFF used that limitation to challenge the stated purpose of the notice, arguing that an offline mesh cannot be shut down through a single platform-level removal. The organization asked the government to withdraw the directive, publish takedown orders issued through the cited provisions, and restore full connectivity around Jantar Mantar.

India’s action follows an April order from the Cyberspace Administration of China that led Apple to remove Bitchat from its China App Store and TestFlight service. Apple’s notice cited rules covering online services with public-opinion or social-mobilization capabilities. Bitchat had also gained users during network disruptions and protests in Nepal, Madagascar, Uganda and Iran, according to reports cited in coverage of the Chinese removal.