Apple pulls messaging app Bitchat from Indian store following IT ministry order

Apple has taken the offline messaging platform Bitchat off its App Store in India following a formal demand from the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Platform creator and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey shared the development on Saturday via a post on X, attaching a screenshot of an email he received from the Apple App Review team.

Official Grounds and Previous Ban

The notice from Apple stated that the software violated local guidelines because it carried content deemed illegal within the country, with the takedown order invoked under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. This marks the second instance of state action against the application, following a July order from the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre directing GitHub to remove the project during demonstrations at New Delhi's Jantar Mantar. Sources indicate that state officials believe the Bluetooth-linked messenger can enable secret coordination, illegal gatherings, and group crimes during periods when mobile networks are disabled.

Activist Pushback and Protests

Digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation condemned the restriction as unconstitutional on Saturday. The advocacy body argued that the software operates without central servers and carries no hosted files of its own, meaning the official claim of unlawful content is incorrect. The platform previously served as a primary communication channel for demonstrators during protests organized by the Cockroach Janta Party and student groups demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over electoral roll disputes, which prompted authorities to suspend mobile internet service in the capital for 12 hours.

Context

Section 69A of India's Information Technology Act gives central and state authorities the power to block public access to digital information through any computer resource under specific circumstances like sovereignty, security, and public order. Because these blocking directives are legally classified as confidential documents, the exact reasoning behind individual orders often remains restricted from public view until affected creators or advocacy groups contest them.