Jack Dorsey's BitChat Was Not the Only App the Indian Government Wanted to Ban Amid CJP New Delhi Protest
India's move against Jack Dorsey's BitChat extended beyond one app. Here's why the government also sought to block Briar and Bridgefy during the CJP protest.
When the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) led protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, was at its peak, the Government of India (GOI) sent a legal notice to GitHub to remove BitChat from its repository. BitChat, which works offline and uses Bluetooth from nearby devices to replay messages, was seen as a security threat.
However, The Left Shift has learnt that BitChat was the only offline messaging app that the GOI wanted to curb. Takedown notices were sent to Google to remove three apps from its Play Store. Of course, BitChat, but also Briar and Bridgefy. Apple also received a similar notice to take these applications down from the App Store.
BitChat vs Briar vs Bridgefy
Briar, developed by the UK-based non-profit Briar Project, follows a similar decentralised approach but primarily relies on Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or the Tor network to synchronise messages securely. It is open-source and is widely used by journalists, activists, and human rights groups because it stores messages only on users' devices, reducing surveillance risks.
Bridgefy, developed by Mexico-based startup Bridgefy Inc., also enables offline messaging using Bluetooth mesh technology, extending communication by hopping messages through nearby users.
While all three apps aim to provide resilient communication without relying on cellular networks, they differ in focus: BitChat emphasises simplicity and privacy, Briar prioritises security and censorship resistance through Tor integration, and Bridgefy is designed for large-scale offline communication during events, emergencies, or internet blackouts.
Does GOI have legal grounds?
According to the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), such platforms could be exploited to evade surveillance, coordinate unlawful activities, spread misinformation, facilitate terrorism, organized crime, or operate during internet shutdowns.
The agency also argues that the absence of a central service provider prevents law enforcement from accessing subscriber information or communication records. Citing provisions of the IT Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the notices classify the apps' functionality as unlawful.
However, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has called the government's move to block BitChat unconstitutional, arguing that the takedown order bypasses the legal procedure under Section 69A of the IT Act, relies on vague reasoning, cites unrelated legal provisions, and imposes an unreasonable three-hour compliance deadline.
IFF also noted that removing BitChat's GitHub repository would not disable the app on users' devices or stop its serverless mesh network, but would instead hinder public scrutiny of its source code.
Separately, the Software Freedom Law Centre India (SFLC) said the order violated principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and due process.
"The opacity surrounding these removals goes against the strict requirements of accountability and record-keeping embedded in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009," it said in a statement.
