The Chandrababu Naidu government is facing fresh criticism over an expanding campaign to suppress criticism on social media. Posts questioning government failures, demanding transparency and raising allegations over issues such as DSC recruitment are being targeted through complaints, restrictions and account-level action. The latest controversy has now assumed an international dimension after an Andhra Pradesh police request sent to X seeking action against social-media posts reportedly listed the organisation name as the Federal Bureau of Investigation — FBI.
The charge is that the government is unable to answer public questions, face criticism over its failures or order transparent investigations into serious allegations, and is therefore attempting to silence those raising such questions by removing posts, making accounts unavailable in India and filing cases against social-media activists. The latest episode involving X has raised questions over the manner in which Andhra Pradesh Police are seeking removal of online content.
Complaint from AP Police, organisation listed as FBI
The email address used for the request belonged to Guntur Police. The complainant was an Andhra Pradesh police officer, the address was in Guntur, the State was Andhra Pradesh and the country was India. Yet, against the organisation name, “FBI” was entered.
X subsequently clarified to users that the request had not come from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation but from Andhra Pradesh Police.
X initially called it an ‘FBI request’
Several social-media activists posting about Andhra Pradesh politics, government policies and DSC recruitment received emails from X’s legal division stating that a request had been received from the FBI claiming that their posts violated Indian law.
This immediately raised questions among users over why a United States investigative agency would complain about political posts relating to developments in Andhra Pradesh.
After users sought clarification, X sent a follow-up communication stating that the request had actually originated from the official email address guntururbansp-ap@gov.in. X explained that its initial communication referred to the FBI because the person submitting the request had entered “FBI” as the organisation name.
Not from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation
X made it clear that the request had not originated from the United States FBI. It also said it did not know why “FBI” had been entered as the organisation name in the request submitted by Andhra Pradesh Police.
For transparency, X disclosed the complainant details as:
- Name: A.V. Brahmam
- Designation: Inspector of Police
- Organisation: FBI
- Email: guntururbansp-ap@gov.in
- Address: Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
- Country: India
The presence of an Andhra Pradesh government email address and police designation alongside “FBI” as the organisation name has now become the centre of the controversy.
Not one account, a series of complaints
The issue cannot easily be dismissed as a single isolated incident. Requests from a law-enforcement agency were reportedly received in relation to posts from accounts including @JaganannaCNCTS, @ChalapathiYsj, @molakalaravi, @ysj_45 and @Telugufeedsite.
X indicated that several such requests had originated from the official Guntur Police email address. This has raised further questions: how many posts were reported, how many accounts were targeted, and whether “FBI” was entered as the organisation in each of those requests.
Why was the FBI name used?
The controversy has triggered several serious questions. Did the police believe a routine request from Andhra Pradesh Police would not receive sufficient attention from X? Was the FBI name used in the expectation that a request appearing to come from an international investigative agency would receive faster action? Was there an attempt to prevent account holders from knowing that the request originated from Andhra Pradesh Police? Or was an official submission sent without even verifying the organisation details?
Whatever the explanation, the issue cannot simply be treated as an ordinary administrative mistake. The State government and the DGP must explain why the name of a foreign investigative agency appeared in an official request originating from Andhra Pradesh Police.
From Meta to X
Attempts to restrict political content did not begin with X. Several Facebook and Instagram users questioning the government had already received notifications that their accounts or posts had been restricted in India.
According to the affected users and related reports:
- jaganannaconnects was temporarily suspended in India after Meta cited repeated legal requests.
- kickjaganhaters2.0 and graduate_adda were reportedly made unavailable in India.
- An account named Jagan Anna received a message on September 2 restricting it in India for 21 days.
- Restrictions were reported on warriorsjagan, theriseofysjagan, bigtv_telugu and jaganaithene chesthadu.
- Sakshi TV was restricted in India for seven days, while the sakshitvdigital Instagram account was also reported to have become unavailable in India.
- A post uploaded on August 21 raising questions over DSC irregularities was blocked in India on September 2.
- Affected users said Meta informed them that access had been restricted under Section 79(3)(b) following a notice from the Central Government or a law-enforcement agency.
The disclosure that Andhra Pradesh Police also sent requests concerning posts on X has intensified concerns that this is not a series of unrelated platform actions but part of a broader pattern of digital suppression.
No answers on DSC, but action against posts?
Candidates have raised numerous questions over Mega DSC recruitment.
Why did a first-rank candidate fail to receive an appointment? Why did certain details disappear after the candidate approached the court? Why did some candidates called for certificate verification in a 1:1 ratio fail to secure appointments? What happened to complaints concerning sports-quota selections? How far has the inquiry into claims of jobs secured using false certificates progressed? For whose benefit were rules and Government Orders changed?
The criticism is that instead of answering these questions with records and evidence, the government machinery is moving swiftly against social-media posts that raise them.
Even as DSC-related disputes have reached the courts, critics say the government becomes far more responsive when videos of affected candidates go viral online.
Cases, arrests, and now accounts
There has already been strong criticism over cases, arrests and non-bailable provisions being used against Opposition leaders, social-media activists, journalists and media organisations questioning the government.
Now, police complaints to social-media platforms seeking restrictions on those very posts have also come to light.
The concern being expressed is that critics are being pressured on two fronts, through criminal proceedings in the physical world and through account restrictions and content removal in the digital space.
What is the scope of the Meta agreement?
The Chandrababu government must also disclose the scope of its agreement with Meta.
Does the agreement include monitoring social-media content? Has any mechanism been created to identify and report content critical of the government? Are user-account details being shared with government agencies? Which department sends complaints to social-media companies, and under whose instructions?
Unless these questions are answered transparently, suspicions will grow that digital censorship mechanisms are being used to restrict criticism of the government, including questions over DSC recruitment.
Not just censorship, a ‘digital emergency’
Today, a post questioning DSC irregularities may be removed. Tomorrow, a video complaining about electricity supply to farmers may disappear. The next day, an account questioning crimes against women, unemployment, corruption, land grabbing or unfulfilled election promises may be restricted.
The danger is creating an environment in which only what the government says becomes news and only what government-friendly media shows is treated as truth.
This is therefore not an issue concerning one political party, one media organisation or a handful of activists. It concerns every citizen exercising the right to freedom of expression. Treating criticism as a crime, a question as a conspiracy and a social-media post as a legal violation poses a danger to democratic discourse.
Posts can be hidden, not the truth
An account may be suspended for seven days. Another may be made unavailable in India for 21 days. A video can be removed. A hundred posts can be blocked.
But the problems faced by citizens, the anguish of unemployed youth and the questions being raised over governance cannot be permanently erased.
If one account is locked, another will ask the same question. If one video is hidden, hundreds can repeat the same facts. The more suppression increases, the stronger public suspicion becomes.
Instead of fighting posts, the government should investigate the allegations. Instead of targeting accounts, it should place the relevant records before the public.
Questions that demand answers
- Why was “FBI” entered as the organisation name in an official request from Andhra Pradesh Police?
- Was it an error or was it deliberate?
- Were these requests sent with the approval of senior police officers?
- Were there directions from senior government functionaries behind them?
- What are the FIR numbers connected to the posts concerned?
- Under which provisions of law was removal of the posts requested?
- How many accounts and posts have been reported so far?
- Were complaints submitted using the names of any other international organisations?
- What official procedure is being followed while sending complaints to Meta, X and other platforms?
- Will the DGP order an inquiry into the entire episode?
Who ordered this?
The government must break its silence over the use of an international agency’s name in a request seeking action against social-media content.
Who ordered it? Why was it done? What action will be taken against those responsible?
Unless the government provides clear answers, it will only strengthen the charge that the police machinery is being turned into a political instrument to silence voices questioning the Chandrababu Naidu government.
