ONE DAY YOU ARE SPEAKING to thousands, your words shaping conversations and influencing opinions. The next day, it feels like you are speaking into an empty room. Your posts barely reach anyone, your followers stop engaging, and the silence is sudden and unsettling. You have broken no rules, yet it is as if your presence has been erased.
This is the reality of shadow banning, an invisible mechanism that hides a person’s voice without prior notice, clear explanation, or the opportunity to appeal. In a world where social media has become the modern public square for journalists, activists, opposition party members, comedians, and influencers, this quiet silencing is more than a technical matter. It can strip away livelihoods, diminish influence, and erode the fundamental right to participate in public life. When platforms control who is heard and who is made invisible, the foundations of democracy itself are put at risk.
The lack of transparency and accountability in shadow banning has a particularly harsh impact on individuals whose livelihoods and public engagement depend on being seen online.
The lack of transparency and accountability in shadow banning has a particularly harsh impact on individuals whose livelihoods and public engagement depend on being seen online. Journalists who expose politically sensitive information, comedians who challenge social norms, and influencers who rely on consistent reach for their income have all found themselves inexplicably silenced.
For example, several independent reporters covering politically sensitive protests have reported sudden drops in engagement on X (formerly Twitter), with their posts no longer appearing in searches or timelines. Comedians have seen once-viral content vanish from trending sections, while creators who depend on brand partnerships have watched their visibility collapse overnight. In each case, no clear violation of platform rules was identified. Yet the outcome was the same: a sharp decline in reach, income, and credibility. Such hidden censorship not only stifles individual voices but also narrows the diversity of perspectives that are essential to a healthy democracy.
What is shadow banning?
Shadow banning is a form of silent censorship. Unlike an account suspension or the outright removal of content, it operates quietly in the background. The user can still post, comment, and interact as usual, but their content is quietly hidden from search results, timelines, or hashtags. To the creator, everything appears normal, yet to the audience, their voice has almost disappeared. Algorithms may downrank posts so they no longer surface in feeds or prevent them from reaching new viewers altogether. The result is a kind of digital invisibility, where a person continues to speak but far fewer people are able to hear them. In practice, it is not a direct suspension, yet its impact can be equally damaging, silencing voices without prior notice, explanation, or the opportunity to respond.
Shadow banning as a constitutional and human rights violation
Shadow banning, when examined through the lens of constitutional law, raises serious concerns under multiple fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, a right that extends not only to speaking but also to disseminating and receiving information. This position is reinforced by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a signatory.
Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to digital spaces. In LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah (1992) and Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995), the Supreme Court recognised that the right to access channels of communication is an essential part of free speech. Shadow banning obstructs this access by covertly reducing visibility without notice or explanation, thereby impairing the exercise of this fundamental right.
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court declared that the freedom of speech and expression also encompasses the right to carry on trade or profession through the internet. Any restriction on these rights must comply with the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality under Articles 19(2) and 19(6). Shadow banning fails all three. It is not backed by any statutory framework, is applied in a manner that is opaque and disproportionate, and it provides no opportunity for redress.
The practice further violates Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. In today’s digital economy, visibility on social media is indispensable for journalists, content creators, and businesses. Reducing reach without due process directly undermines their ability to earn a livelihood.
Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, includes within its scope the rights to privacy, dignity, and reputation, as recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018). Suppressing content in a manner that affects an individual’s reputation, dignity, and income, without transparency or accountability, runs contrary to these protections.
Finally, shadow banning offends Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary action. Social media platforms, despite being private entities, perform functions that have significant public impact. The unilateral use of opaque algorithms to suppress speech, without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard, amounts to arbitrary action and disregards the principles of natural justice that apply even in quasi-judicial and regulatory contexts.
Shadow banning, therefore, is not merely a technical policy measure. It is an opaque and unaccountable practice that undermines multiple constitutional guarantees and, by extension, weakens democratic discourse.
Economic livelihood and the right to work
When visibility equals survival, what happens when it is taken away in silence? For journalists, influencers, small businesses, and content creators, social media visibility is not merely a convenience; it is the very foundation of their economic existence. The sudden and undisclosed restriction of online reach through shadow banning can severely impact income streams from advertisements, sponsorships, and public engagement. Such restrictions, when imposed without due notice or an opportunity to contest them, undermine both the constitutional guarantee of occupational freedom, principles of natural justice and the protections recognised under international human rights instruments.
The digital economy has created a new category of workers whose livelihood depends on sustained audience access. When this access is covertly curtailed, the result is economic harm inflicted without transparency, oversight, or remedy. This constitutes a clear departure from the principles of fairness and accountability that govern lawful restrictions.
The unilateral use of opaque algorithms to suppress speech, without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard, amounts to arbitrary action.
India’s Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, impose certain obligations on digital platforms but remain silent on the regulation of algorithmic moderation and shadow banning. Section 79 of the Act grants intermediaries a safe harbour for third-party content but does not mandate transparency in algorithmic visibility restrictions or provide a grievance redressal framework for hidden content suppression.
Although intermediaries enjoy conditional immunity under Section 79, this protection is subject to compliance with due diligence requirements, as clarified in Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2016), where the Delhi High Court emphasised the need for adherence to statutory obligations. Yet, the Act does not recognise covert moderation as an area demanding disclosure or accountability.
While platforms are required to publish terms of service and set up grievance mechanisms, these measures do not address the opaque nature of shadow banning. A user subjected to such covert suppression is typically unaware of the action taken and has no practical or legal avenue to contest the platform’s decision. This raises a critical question: Can the right to free expression be meaningfully exercised if the speaker is not even aware that their voice is being silenced?
By shaping public discourse and serving as infrastructure for digital livelihoods, these platforms carry an implicit duty to respect fundamental rights.
Comparative framework: The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and public function doctrine
The European Union’s DSA offers a compelling benchmark for regulating covert moderation practices. It mandates platforms to issue a “statement of reasons” for every moderation action, including visibility restrictions. Article 14 requires clear, publicly accessible content moderation policies, while Article 17 ensures that users receive a detailed explanation for each moderation decision stating when content is restricted, why it happened, and how to contest it.
Notably, Preamble 55 of the DSA explicitly identifies “shadow banning” and acknowledges its chilling effect on online expression. Further, Preamble 66 guarantees the right to an effective remedy, protecting users from unjustified demotion or algorithmic suppression. Such explicit safeguards are absent in Indian law.
Although privately owned, platforms like X and Meta perform quasi-public roles by enabling mass communication and access to information. Indian courts have recognised that private entities can be subject to constitutional scrutiny when performing public functions. By shaping public discourse and serving as infrastructure for digital livelihoods, these platforms carry an implicit duty to respect fundamental rights. Their moderation practices must therefore be transparent, proportionate, and accountable.
Access to digital justice: From constitutional promise to platform accountability
Justice is a core constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 21. In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008), the Court emphasized the importance of accessible adjudicatory mechanisms. Similarly, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019), highlighted the need for independent regulatory tribunals. The absence of a grievance appellate mechanism under the IT Act or any hybrid adjudicatory platform for algorithmic moderation issues constitutes a silent denial of justice. If digital spaces are the new public square, why is there no dedicated forum to hear those silenced by invisible algorithms?
Key reform imperatives
To protect digital rights in India and restore public trust in platforms, it is essential to:
establish a Specialised Digital Rights Tribunal- empowered to hear complaints on algorithmic suppression, shadow banning, and other moderation disputes, ensuring timely and impartial redress.
mandate User Notification & Right to Appeal- requiring platforms to inform users of visibility restrictions in clear terms and provide a binding appeal process.
Shadow banning is more than a technical policy, it is a form of silent censorship that undermines free expression, economic rights, privacy, and democratic engagement. As more aspects of life shift online, ensuring transparency and fairness in digital spaces is not just a regulatory issue, it is a human rights imperative. Judicial intervention and legislative reform are urgently needed to restore democratic balance in digital communication. Unless regulated, shadow banning will remain a silent yet pervasive method of censorship that will affect livelihoods in the digital economy.
The time has come for India to fill the legal vacuum/lacuna around shadow banning and ensure that no one is silenced in the digital shadows without cause or recourse.