Over the past decade, India’s digital governance has shifted from occasional content removal to systematic censorship of dissenting voices on social media. Independent activists and journalists report that accounts critical of the Union government’s West‑Asia policy and the LPG crisis have been blocked, reflecting a broader trend of state‑driven control over the online public sphere. Key Developments (2021‑2026) From 2014 to 2021 , blocked URLs, posts and accounts rose from 470 to 9,800 . During the 2020‑21 farmers’ protests, many accounts were blocked; international pressure forced the government to restore some, exposing the scale of possible censorship. In 2023, the government invoked emergency powers under the IT Rules to block links to a BBC documentary, expanding the definition of a “threat to public order”. The Karnataka High Court (2021‑22) dismissed Twitter’s (now X) plea challenging blocking orders and imposed a fine, signalling judicial endorsement of the state’s censorship stance. Proposals to decentralise blocking powers to multiple ministries risk creating a regime where any department can silence critics without specialised oversight. Important Legal and Procedural Facts The Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal case affirmed Section 69A on the basis of procedural safeguards. In practice, the government exploits Rule 16 to keep orders secret, denying affected users the chance to contest them in court. The blocking committee created under the IT Rules 2009 is wholly executive, undermining the principle of proportionality and the right to be heard. Whole‑account bans amount to a “digital exile”, removing individuals from the public square – a hallmark of authoritarian governance rather than liberal democracy. UPSC Relevance Constitutional Law & Fundamental Rights : The tension between state security powers under Section 69A and the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is a classic test of the proportionality doctrine. Governance & Accountability : The use of confidential procedural rules (Rule 16) and the lack of judicial review highlight challenges in administrative transparency and checks‑and‑balances. Digital India & Policy : Understanding how technology law evolves is essential for GS4 (Ethics) and GS3 (Technology) sections, especially as India expands its digital infrastructure. Judicial Precedents : The Shreya Singhal judgment serves as a reference point for evaluating future challenges to online censorship. Way Forward To safeguard democratic discourse, the following steps are recommended: Introduce statutory mandates for transparent blocking orders, ensuring affected parties receive reasons and a reasonable time to appeal. Reconstitute the blocking review committee as a multi‑stakeholder body, including members of the judiciary and civil society, to provide independent oversight. Limit the scope of Rule 16 to genuine national security cases, with mandatory post‑hoc judicial review. Legislate clear criteria for “digital exile” to prevent blanket bans on entire accounts, aligning with international human‑rights norms. Encourage parliamentary scrutiny of any proposal to decentralise blocking powers, ensuring that no single ministry can unilaterally silence dissent. For UPSC aspirants, tracking these developments offers insight into the evolving balance between state security, digital governance, and fundamental freedoms – a core theme in Polity and Ethics papers.