Welcome to this month’s edition of our Talking Points newsletter, where we bring you a curated list of things to think about in tech policy: something that you can bring up to spark a discussion or debate.
1. Meta has not clarified whether it restricts posts in India based on keywords. [Anjali Tripathi]
Meta and MeitY did not respond to MediaNama’s October 29 questions about whether the government has API access to restrict content on Instagram and Facebook, or if Meta blocks posts by keyword or hashtag. According to SFLC.in’s tracker, 268 content and 83 account restrictions were recorded across platforms in the first 29 days of October. The tracker alleges that posts containing words such as “ECI”, “protest”, and “SIR” were removed, with most notices not citing any order or authority.
2. A Delhi Police vehicle equipped with facial recognition technology is stationed outside a Saket mall [Anjali Tripathi]
A Delhi Police vehicle marked “Facial Recognition System” and “South District” was parked outside Select Citywalk on November 1, though it is unclear if it was in use. MediaNama found no published standard operating procedure, deployment record, or law specifically governing police use of facial recognition in Delhi.
3. CERT-In chief on AI agents [Anjali Tripathi]
“AI agents are being trusted faster than they are being secured,” CERT-In Director General Dr Sanjay Bahl told MediaNama in a written Q&A.
An agent that misuses credentials or acts beyond its scope causes a reportable cybersecurity incident, to be reported within six hours, and “fewer organisations” are keeping a full record of agents’ tool calls, he said.
4. Can LEAs seek a journalist’s digital data for months before an alleged offence? [Prabhanu Kumar Das]
The Supreme Court quashed a Ghaziabad Crime Branch notice seeking three months of data linked to investigative journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s X account in connection with an alleged road-rage incident. The police had sought login and logout IP addresses, location data, device details and contact information for the period between June 1 and August 22, 2026, despite the alleged incident taking place on August 18. The bench held that police cannot obtain confidential or personal information for a period before the alleged offence. It also said that requests for digital data must satisfy the principles of proportionality and include privacy safeguards.
Upadhyay had argued that the request could expose his confidential journalistic sources and was linked to his reporting on alleged irregularities involving Ram Janmabhoomi Temple donations. The court has also left scope for mandatory guidelines on police requests for digital information during investigations. Until then, the order establishes an interim framework for such requests. How can law enforcement balance the need for digital evidence with journalists’ right to protect their sources and individuals’ right to privacy?
5. Karnataka says social media ban is Centre’s domain; Education dept to seek Centre’s advice [Azdhan]
Despite the Supreme Court’s recent order against a blanket social media ban and age-based restrictions, the Karnataka state government said it will seek the Centre’s recommendations on restricting or banning social media access for children, according to a Deccan Herald report. Unnamed state officials reportedly said a social media ban “comes under the Centre’s domain.” The state government has realised it can enforce restrictions only on devices under its control, not on all devices such as those owned by parents. Karnataka’s Department of School Education & Literacy is likely to ask the state Cabinet to make recommendations next month, the report said.
IT Minister Priyank Kharge told Deccan Herald that the government is in discussions with social media platforms and exploring algorithm-based regulations.
“In Australia and other countries that banned social media, we’ve seen children bypassing the age verification step. So, now, we’re trying to see how algorithms can be regulated.” – Karnataka IT Minister Priyank Kharge.
In an op-ed, MediaNama founder and editor Nikhil Pahwa pointed out how hard a state-level social media ban would be to enforce. Geolocation is mostly inaccurate, and “if one state bans and another doesn’t, how are platforms supposed to enforce that?”
He also blames the states’ moves on MeitY doing nothing. “…the inaction from the Centre nudges the states to act. Expect more state action on Social Media, not less,” he argued.
Kharge has said the state is looking at how algorithms could be regulated, which aligns with Pahwa’s suggestion. “Instead of regulating the system, governments are regulating access to the system,” he suggested. Currently, neither the Centre nor the states have a framework or policy to regulate social media algorithms and address the risks these platforms pose to children.
6. Does the State get to decide what your feed carries? [Aakriti Bansal]
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) asked Meta on October 10 to ensure Instagram and Facebook recommendations do not expose users to “a single or limited set of narratives”. It sent the advisory on the day Delhi Police detained Cockroach Janta Party leaders at Jantar Mantar.
Content restrictions in India leave a record. Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act produces a blocking order, and Section 79(3)(b) produces a notice through Sahyog. A user whose reach drops gets neither.
The advisory cites the IT Act and the due diligence obligations under the IT Rules, neither of which governs recommendation systems. Who then decides which narratives count as credible, and how much exposure to one of them becomes disproportionate?
If the government can set how widely lawful content travels, should platforms have to disclose every downranking they carry out, and where does a user take a complaint when their post stays up and stops reaching anyone?
Regards
Team MediaNama