Jack Dorsey shared a government notice on X that ordered GitHub to pull three repositories tied to Bitchat. The move came fast. Dated July 23 and issued by India’s Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, it gave Microsoft-owned GitHub three hours to act. The app in question relies on Bluetooth mesh networks. It lets users trade encrypted messages and even relay bitcoin transactions without any internet connection, servers or user accounts.
But authorities saw danger. The notice, reviewed by Moneycontrol, invoked Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021. Officials argued the tool could help coordinate unlawful assemblies. It might let people dodge internet shutdowns. And it would complicate lawful interception, attribution and traceability for law enforcement.
The timing wasn’t random. Student-led demonstrations known as the Cockroach Janta Party protests had gripped New Delhi for weeks. Young people demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged exam paper leaks. Police imposed marches restrictions and cut mobile data in central areas. Some demonstrators turned to offline apps like Bitchat and Briar to stay in touch. Downloads in India exploded. Sensor Tower data shared with TechCrunch showed India drove 85 percent of global Bitchat installs between July 17 and 23. Daily active users there hit more than 330,000.
Protesters found a way.
Dorsey didn’t stay silent. He posted the notice and added his view. “the government of india does not like technologies like bitchat and wants it taken down,” he wrote on X, as reported by CoinDesk. The former Twitter chief has long backed decentralized systems. Bitchat, released as open source in 2025 by his company Block, fits that vision perfectly. No phone numbers. No central points of failure. Messages hop device to device via Bluetooth Low Energy. The more phones join the mesh, the farther information travels.
Yet that same design alarmed the Ministry of Home Affairs. The order described Bitchat as “a communication platform capable of establishing decentralised peer-to-peer messaging over Bluetooth mesh networks without relying on mobile networks, internet connectivity, or centralized servers.” It warned such tools could spread misinformation, aid radicalization or support activities against public order and state security. Similar concerns had surfaced before. Apple removed the app from China’s App Store in April at regulators’ request. Still it spread.
Legal experts quickly pushed back. The Internet Freedom Foundation called the directive unconstitutional and authoritarian. In a statement, the group noted that deleting repositories changes little on the ground. “The order also fails on its own terms as deleting a repository does not delete the application from any phone that carries it, and the mesh keeps functioning without servers. What the takedown actually prevents is scrutiny of the underlying code,” IFF posted on X. The organization demanded the order’s withdrawal. Repositories, including the main project and Android version, stayed accessible in India as of July 24.
Mishi Choudhary, founder of digital rights group SFLC.in, told TechCrunch the notice looked like standard government takedown language. But the cited provisions don’t clearly allow removal of an entire software project simply because of its function rather than specific illegal content. Before 2021, she explained, authorities usually turned to Section 69A of the IT Act for nationwide blocks. This approach felt different. It targeted open source code itself.
Raman Chima of the Association for Progressive Communications went further. Government wasn’t merely pressing a service provider, he said. “They’re trying to say that open source development of this type of product … should not occur.” Namrata Maheshwari, senior policy counsel at Access Now, warned that blocking offline messengers during network restrictions could create total communication blackouts. Fundamental rights hang in the balance. Peaceful coordination shouldn’t vanish when the internet does.
GitHub offered its standard line. The company maintains a public repository of government takedown requests. No entry for Bitchat had appeared yet. Rose Coogan, principal online safety counsel at GitHub, said the platform notifies affected developers when it receives valid orders and gives them a chance to appeal. It publishes actions it takes. But it stopped short of confirming receipt of this specific notice. Microsoft has complied with past Indian directives on other content. Here the stakes involve code that powers protest communication.
The episode highlights broader tensions. India has shut down the internet more than any other country in recent years, often during civil unrest. Officials insist such steps preserve public order and stop violence. Critics counter that they stifle speech and drive people toward tools harder to monitor. Bitchat’s bitcoin features add another layer. Dorsey’s enthusiasm for cryptocurrency and decentralized finance clashes directly with government preferences for traceable systems.
Code doesn’t disappear easily.
Even if GitHub removes the listed repositories, mirrors exist across the web. The app remains available on app stores. Users who already installed it keep the mesh alive. And developers can fork the project under new names. The order may slow adoption or chill future contributions. It probably won’t kill the technology. Similar mesh apps like Briar have operated for years in activist circles worldwide.
Delhi Police, according to India Today, are investigating whether Bluetooth messaging played a role in the protests. They review CCTV, digital evidence and seek data from providers where possible. No confirmation has emerged that Bitchat specifically was used, but its surge in downloads coincided with the data blackouts. The government notice listed risks including violent protests, criminal conspiracies and threats to sovereignty.
Advocates see a pattern. Repeated orders against privacy features in WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram have drawn similar criticism from IFF. Those cases targeted username rollouts or end-to-end encryption tweaks. This one strikes at the source code for an app built to work when all else fails. The legal debate now centers on whether intermediaries like GitHub must police the functional design of software hosted on their platforms. If courts uphold this approach, open source projects with dual-use potential could face preemptive blocks.
Dorsey’s decision to leak the notice amplified the story instantly. His post drew attention from technologists, bitcoin enthusiasts and free-speech campaigners. It also put pressure on Indian authorities to justify their legal footing in public. The Home Ministry had not responded to media requests for comment as of Friday. That silence leaves the field to critics who argue the order overreaches and undermines innovation in resilient communication tools.
Industry watchers expect the dispute to reach Indian courts soon. The Internet Freedom Foundation and allied groups have challenged similar directives before. Outcomes could set precedent for how governments handle decentralized technologies that resist traditional surveillance. For now the code lives on. Protesters keep their options. And the conversation about balancing security with open development grows louder with each attempt to shut it down.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication