Instagram Removes CJP Protest Reels, Students Question Meta’s Content Moderation Policy

Several reels documenting the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests have were removed or restricted on Instagram, prompting students, political leaders and digital rights advocates to question the basis of whether the platform's moderation decisions are being influenced by government takedown requests. While some posts were flagged for allegedly violating Meta's community standards, others were made unavailable in India after legal notices, according to users.

According to The Print, the removals have fuelled questions over how social media platforms moderate political speech and whether government notices are shaping online discourse around protests. The demonstrations were organised under the CJP's 'Sansad Chalo' campaign to demand the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over his ministry's handling of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.

One of those affected is Sakhi, a Jamia Millia Islamia student affiliated with the Students' Federation of India (SFI), the student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Sakhi's protest reels attracted millions of views and popularised the Gen Z phrase vastegune huia, including among parliamentarians.

"The reels made during the protest were satirical ways of questioning power," Sakhi told The Print, adding that the videos had received millions of views.

Sakhi said that while scrolling through Instagram two days earlier, they discovered that four of their most-viewed reels, uploaded between 20 and 25 July, had been removed or restricted.

According to The Print, Sakhi said Instagram removed four reels uploaded between 20 and 25 July. Besides the reel showing torn clothes and injuries allegedly sustained during the 20 July protest, the removed content included a satirical video about Delhi Police attempting to stop demonstrators from gathering at Jantar Mantar, a parody song highlighting unemployment, a reel showing police personnel unloading food from a truck after lathi-charge and the use of tear gas, and another featuring Muhammed Junaid, a volunteer distributing food at Jantar Mantar.

"The reel where I am sharing how my clothes were torn and how me and my comrades got injured when Delhi Police beat us up on 20 July, was taken down. Instagram showed that it was going against the community standards on 'adult sexual exploitations'," said Sakhi.

Instagram's notification on that reel read: "We can't show you this post because it may contain sexual content without others' consent, which could be distressing or unsafe." The publication reported that Instagram also informed Sakhi that the other reels had been made unavailable in India.

Speaking about the reel featuring Junaid, Sakhi said: "In that reel Junaid bhai was talking about how the UP Police hounded his family to stop him from participating in the protests."

The publication further reported that Instagram informed Sakhi that the affected reels had been restricted in India pursuant to notices received under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The platform displayed the message: "We have restricted access to your content in India pursuant to a notice from The Government of India/Law Enforcement under section 79 (3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000."

Section 79(3)(b) removes the "safe harbour" protection available to digital intermediaries if they fail to remove unlawful content after receiving official notice from authorities. The provision applies to social media platforms, search engines and internet service providers.

Sakhi also questioned why another creator's reaction video using the same footage remained available despite allegedly containing abusive remarks directed at the queer community.

"If my video was violating anything, then how come the same video that is part of a longer video including abuses hurled at the queer community continue to be available in India," asked Sakhi.

According to The Print, similar allegations have also been made by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das and the Indian Youth Congress, all of whom have claimed that Meta removed some of their posts.

When contacted by The Print, a senior Delhi Police official from the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) department denied that CJP-related content had been singled out, saying the identification of objectionable online posts formed part of the department's routine work.

"This is part of the everyday work of our department, nothing was done specifically for the CJP-related posts," the official said, rejecting allegations that posts documenting police action during the 'Sansad Chalo' march had been specifically targeted.

The Print also said it sought a response from Meta via text message but had not received one by the time of publication. It added that the report would be updated if and when the company responded.

Digital Rights Groups Raise Transparency Concerns

Mishi Choudhary, founder of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), told The Print that the organisation had received several complaints through its digital rights helpline, Rights Line, from users whose CJP protest-related posts had been removed or restricted.

"In several cases, users have received no meaningful explanation beyond a generic reference to platform guidelines. That makes it difficult to know whether Meta is applying its own content policies, responding to government or police notices, or simply allowing automated moderation systems to suppress politically sensitive material," said Choudhary.

Gopika, vice-president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU), also alleged that Instagram removed one of her posts after she uploaded a screenshot of a rape threat she received following her posts on the CJP protests, along with a note about violence faced by women expressing their views.

"Following my posts on the CJP protests, I received a rape threat over my direct messages on Instagram. Enraged, I took a screenshot of the message and wrote a note on how women continue to face systemic violence for voicing their opinions and then uploaded a carousel post with both the screenshot of the message and my personal note," said Gopika.

According to Gopika, Instagram removed the post for allegedly violating its community guidelines on "sexual and nudity content".

The publication further reported that an SFI video featuring Mohammed Junaid was also made unavailable in India.

"Instagram flagged the video and notified that this post was unavailable in India," said Sooraj, president of SFI's Delhi unit.

"In the video, Mohammed Junaid was visiting our office and speaking to our comrades about how the UP Police had illegally detained his parents and sister and were hounding them to ask him to come back," Sooraj added.

He said the organisation succeeded in uploading the video only on its sixth attempt after the first five uploads failed.

"A couple of days back when I was going through the account, I realised that Junaid's video had been taken down," he said.

Instagram informed SFI: "We restricted access to this content through an automated system implemented pursuant to legal requirements under India's Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules."

The caption accompanying the re-uploaded video read: "This video was taken down by Meta the first two times it was posted. Let's see what happens now. You know who gave the 'maafi' to the youngsters and has now directed his friends in the Meta to take down videos of the people who speak against them?"

Choudhary said expression concerning protests, police conduct and government action constituted core political speech and argued that platforms should clearly explain the basis for removing or restricting such content.

"Any form of expression concerning a protest, police conduct and the actions of the government is core political speech and while a platform may remove material that genuinely incites violence or violates a clearly specified rule, it must inform the user what was removed, which rule was applied, whether a government request was involved, and how the decision can be challenged. This secrecy around content moderation is an issue which SFLC.IN has challenged in the Supreme Court as well," she said.

Choudhary also said there was an "obvious conflict where Delhi Police, the agency accused of using excessive force, is able to identify and seek removal of the material documented".