On Thursday late night, when the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Home Ministry issued a two‑page “order for reasoned intimation” to GitHub, directing the platform to “remove or disable access” to three URLs hosting Bitchat’s source code and Android builds within three hours, it opened a can of worms: State control vs decentralised tech.
The notice, shared by Jack Dorsey on X, cited Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rule 3(1)(d) and Rule 7 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, warning that GitHub’s safe‑harbour protection does not apply if it fails to act after receiving “actual knowledge” of unlawful information.
The notice also listed the targeted links: the main GitHub repository for “permissionlesstech/bitchat,” the Android project, and its releases page.
What is Bitchat?
The Centre itself, in the order, described Bitchat as a decentralised Bluetooth mesh platform that enables peer‑to‑peer messaging without mobile networks, internet connectivity or centralised servers, and notes that it does not require user registration, phone numbers or central logging of communications.
Intelligence inputs, the order said, suggest such tools could be exploited to coordinate unlawful assemblies, violent protests, terrorism, organised crime and to “evade lawful detection and continue communication despite legally imposed restrictions.”
“But the same technology also helps people coordinate during floods, emergencies, etc,” said a 32-year-old communications technology expert from Greater Noida.
“This is a classic case of the government not understanding the difference between technology and apps. You can ban apps, you can't ban technology. The government was not successful in banning blockchain technology, so they resorted to heavily taxing cryptocurrency, but here, bitchat is not currency; it is free and powered by people,” the expert explained.
Why blocking code may not work
Technically, the order applies only to GitHub as an “intermediary” hosting code. Bitchat is open‑source, so anyone who has already cloned the repository or downloaded the Android package can share it independently, recompile it, or host mirrors on other platforms.
Deleting those three GitHub pages removes a convenient, "official" copy of the code and releases, but it does not erase installed apps, nor does it dismantle the underlying Bluetooth mesh protocol that allows devices to talk directly when mobile data is shut off.
The contrast with the recent temporary ban on Telegram is instructive. In that case, the government used Section 69A of the IT Act to block the mainstream messaging app nationwide until June 22 over alleged NEET exam paper leaks, by ordering app stores and network operators to restrict access to Telegram itself.
Telegram’s centralised architecture—one company, identifiable servers, reliance on official app stores—made that platform‑level block feasible. Bitchat, by design, has no equivalent central switch.
For the Centre, the Bitchat order asserts legal grounds to demand cooperation from a major code host and spells out detailed security concerns. But for developers building decentralised, crowd‑powered tools, it also gives them a stronger case on why they chose open‑source protocols that can survive the loss of any single repository.
The takedown order with a three-hour deadline to GitHub was timestamped 10.16 pm IST on June 23. As of 3.30 pm IST on June 25, all three repositories in GitHub are still alive and well. What will the Centre do now? Will it ban GitHub, a free repository library that millions of young programmers in India and the rest of the world depend on?
