Consider what a user actually receives. The Kerala journalist KA Shaji reported that a post carrying an image of Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor with student protesters was restricted in India. The notice said that access had been restricted through an automated system implemented pursuant to legal requirements under the IT Rules. Shaji removed the students and the placards, leaving only the two politicians, but the restriction recurred. In May 2026, the Congress made a comparable allegation about photographs of Rahul Gandhi with the actor Vijay, again attributing the block to IT Rules compliance.
That notice does not identify which sub-clause of Rule 3(1)(b) was engaged. It does not say whether the restriction followed a direction under Section 69A, a court order, a private complaint, or the platform’s own classifier. It does not indicate whether any human considered the matter. It recites the existence of Indian law as though the recitation were itself a ground.
That is not a reason. A reason is a statement which permits the person affected to know what has been alleged and to answer it. A notice asserting only that some legal requirement somewhere applies renders the second limb of Rule 4(8) formally available and practically void. One cannot dispute an unstated ground.