New Delhi: A widely circulated Instagram reel featuring comedian Pulkit Mani impersonating Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been restricted across India following a government directive issued under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The move has reignited debate around freedom of expression, the limits of satire, and the transparency of content regulation in the digital space.
The reel, which had garnered more than 16 million views prior to its restriction, is now inaccessible to users within India. Viewers attempting to access the content are met with a notice stating, “Post not available in India,” along with a reference to compliance with local legal requirements. While the exact authority issuing the order has not been publicly disclosed, such actions are typically carried out under Section 69A of the IT Act, which allows the government to block online content on grounds such as sovereignty, national security, or public order.
Posted around March 18, 2026, under the Instagram handle @hunnywhoisfunny, the reel showcased Mani’s mimicry skills through a satirical portrayal of the Prime Minister’s speaking style, gestures, and diplomatic interactions. The performance included exaggerated renditions of commonly associated phrases and mannerisms, which many viewers described as sharply observant and humorous.
Before being restricted, the video had attracted significant engagement, with users praising it as a “spot-on” and “highly accurate” piece of satire. The reel was widely shared across platforms, with several prominent content creators and commentators reposting it. Among them, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee shared a version of the video, drawing attention to its restriction and framing it within the broader issue of free speech online.
The blocking of the reel falls within the scope of Section 69A of the IT Act, which empowers the central government to direct intermediaries such as social media platforms to restrict access to specific content. The process is governed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, which mandate confidentiality of blocking orders.
As a result, detailed justifications for such actions are rarely made public. Social media platforms typically comply with these directives to retain their legal immunity under the “safe harbour” provisions, which protect them from liability for user-generated content. Recent amendments to IT Rules have further tightened compliance timelines, reportedly requiring platforms to act within hours of receiving such orders.
In this case, neither the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) nor the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued a formal statement explaining the rationale behind the restriction of the reel.
The incident appears to be part of a broader trend of actions targeting satirical and critical content online. Reports indicate that on the same day the reel was restricted, several parody and commentary accounts across platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and Facebook were also withheld in India.
These accounts, including handles like @Nehr_who, @DrNimoYadav, and @DuckKiBaat, were known for posting content that critiqued or mocked political figures and policies. Some had addressed topics such as the Prime Minister’s public image, foreign policy decisions, and domestic governance issues.
Earlier in March, an investigative report highlighted multiple instances where satirical content, including animated videos, parody songs, and AI-generated posts, had been restricted despite being labelled appropriately. Critics have argued that such actions may be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which emphasized the need for reasoned orders and procedural safeguards in content blocking cases.
Digital rights organisations have expressed concern over the growing frequency of such actions. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), a prominent advocacy group, described the recent measures as an “alarming escalation” and called for greater transparency in the blocking process.
In its statement, the organisation urged the government to publish blocking orders and ensure that affected individuals have the opportunity to challenge them. It also emphasized the importance of protecting satire and political criticism as essential components of democratic discourse.
Pulkit Mani, the creator behind the reel, is a stand-up comedian known for his mimicry-based content. With a modest but growing online presence, including a YouTube channel featuring comedy specials, Mani has built a following through his humorous takes on current affairs and public figures.
The restricted reel is considered one of his most successful pieces in terms of reach and engagement. While it is no longer available on Instagram in India, versions of the video reportedly continue to circulate on other platforms, including YouTube, where access remains unrestricted.
The restriction has sparked a wide range of reactions on social media. Many users have questioned the necessity of blocking satirical content, arguing that humour and parody are legitimate forms of expression. Hashtags related to censorship and digital rights began trending shortly after the news broke, with users sharing reposts and discussing the implications of the move.
At the same time, a smaller section of users has suggested that certain forms of mimicry could be perceived as disrespectful or potentially crossing the line into personal attacks, highlighting the ongoing tension between free expression and responsible content creation.
