The offline messaging app was removed after a request from India's IT ministry under Section 69A, citing illegal content without specifying it, drawing criticism from digital rights advocates over secrecy in blocking orders.
Apple has taken Bitchat, an offline messaging app linked to Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, off the App Store in India after a takedown request from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). Dorsey made the removal public on X on October 3, sharing the notice he received from Apple.
According to that notice, the request was made under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and referred to "content that is illegal in India." It did not, however, identify which content allegedly broke Indian law.
An app built to work without the internet
The removal restricts access to a service designed very differently from mainstream chat platforms. Launched in 2025, Bitchat needs neither an internet connection nor a central server. It relies on Bluetooth mesh networking, allowing nearby devices to pass encrypted messages to one another, with each device relaying data onward.
That design is intended to keep people in contact when conventional connectivity is unavailable, setting the app apart from services that depend on online infrastructure and centralised systems.
Second Indian action against the project
The App Store removal is not the first time Indian authorities have moved against Bitchat. In July 2026, they asked GitHub to take down repositories associated with the project, invoking a different provision of the same law. The latest order is the first to specifically rely on Section 69A, which empowers the government to direct the blocking of public access to information in defined circumstances.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has condemned the move, calling the order unconstitutional. The digital rights group has also questioned the absence of public information about the blocking order and the precise grounds on which the provision was used.
Transparency in focus
The episode therefore raises questions beyond whether Indian users can download one app. Blocking orders under Section 69A are typically not published, which makes it difficult for developers, users and the public to understand or challenge them. Critics argue that this opacity is at the heart of the dispute, since neither Apple's notice nor any public document explains what was considered unlawful.
