India's government ordered GitHub, a website where programmers share code, to remove three copies of an app called Bitchat. The app was created by Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter. The government said the app's design could help people do illegal things because it lets people send messages without being easily tracked. The order came on July 23, 2026, from the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, part of India's Home Ministry. GitHub was given three hours to comply. Dorsey posted the notice on X, and TechCrunch reported the story the next day (TechCrunch).

The order did not point to any specific illegal messages or content. Instead, it targeted the whole app based on how it works. The government argued that Bitchat's design could let people communicate during internet shutdowns and make it harder for law enforcement to monitor messages.

That distinction matters. Mishi Choudhary, who founded a digital rights group called SFLC.in, told TechCrunch that the laws cited in the order were not written to allow removing an entire software project because of how it is built. Before 2021, India usually relied on Section 69A of its IT Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules to remove content. Those laws were designed to block specific web pages or online material, not software projects.

Bitchat works through Bluetooth, the same short-range wireless technology that connects wireless headphones to phones. Instead of sending messages through the internet, Bitchat passes them directly from one phone to another nearby phone, and then to the next, creating a chain. This means people can message each other without Wi-Fi or cell service. Dorsey launched the app as an open-source project in July 2025, meaning anyone can see and modify its code. He promised secure and private messaging without any central company servers. He also acknowledged at the time that Bitchat had not been tested for security. The app was available on Apple's App Store by late July 2025.

The takedown attempt happened during student-led protests in New Delhi over alleged examination paper leaks. Protesters called their movement "cockroach" and demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. After the government shut down internet service during the protests, some demonstrators downloaded offline messaging apps including Bitchat and Briar.

Download data shows how quickly Bitchat caught on in India. The country made up about 85% of Bitchat's global downloads between July 17 and July 23, 2026, compared with about 1% over the previous 30 days. Bitchat was downloaded more than 91,000 times in India in the five days before July 23, after downloads jumped thirty-two-fold on July 19 from the prior day. Daily active users in India reached more than 330,000 on the date covered by Sensor Tower data.

The combination of a protest-driven surge in downloads and a takedown order based on the app's design raises a question that has come up in other countries too: whether governments can or should restrict software tools based on how they are built rather than on proof that they were used for something illegal. The notice argues that the app's design itself makes lawful interception difficult, treating the app's core technical features as the problem.

This is not the first time a government has gone after encrypted or decentralized communication tools because of how they work. What stands out here is the approach: the order tells a code-sharing website to remove the app's code, rather than blocking a live service or specific content. GitHub is where developers download and share the app's code. Removing it from GitHub does not disable copies already installed on people's phones. It also does not stop other developers from making their own copies and sharing them elsewhere. The practical effect, if GitHub complies, is to make future downloads harder and signal the government's intent, not to shut down the network itself.

For developers building tools that resist censorship or central control, the Indian government's move is a clear signal. The laws being used were not written for software repositories, and the gap between what those laws allow and what the order demands is exactly where Choudhary and SFLC.in plan to challenge it. Whether Indian courts agree that content-blocking powers can extend to removing software based on its design will shape how far governments can reach into the tools developers build, not just the apps ordinary people use.

The broader context is that mesh networking apps sit in an unusual spot in the law. They are not phone companies and they are not social media platforms. Bitchat's design means messages travel phone to phone and never pass through central servers that a government could force to hand over data. Law enforcement agencies have legitimate reasons to find this frustrating. The question is whether that frustration with a tool's design translates into legal authority to ban it, and whether code-sharing sites like GitHub become the pressure point when the network itself has no central company to go after.

For India's protest movements, the adoption pattern tells its own story. People reached for Bitchat and Briar specifically because internet shutdowns cut off regular communication. The same shutdown that pushed protesters toward these tools is the thing the government's order calls a risk: Bitchat allows communication during internet shutdowns. The notice frames that as a problem. Protesters experienced it as a benefit.