The suspension reportedly took place around 6 pm, with the platform’s parent company Meta allegedly citing a “violent sexual post” as justification. Observers noted that Yadav’s page had over eight million followers and served as a key venue for commentary and mobilisation across Uttar Pradesh.
SP leaders immediately accused the government of orchestrating the move. SP spokesperson Fakhrul Hasan Chaand posted on X that the action constituted “an attack on democracy,” claiming that “every opposing voice is being suppressed” under what the party termed an undeclared emergency. National Secretary Rajeev Rai said that blocking the leader of the country’s third-largest party was “a blow to India’s democratic system.”
Officials associated with Meta, however, denied any interference by the government. A source familiar with the platform’s processes told media that suspensions are taken based on content violations, and there was no indication that political pressure influenced this action. Meta has not issued a public statement explaining the suspension.
The BJP dismissed SP’s claims as political theatrics. A BJP spokesperson said that only Meta knows why the suspension occurred, and noted that social media platforms sometimes remove accounts — even belonging to BJP leaders — over terms of service violations. The spokesperson accused the SP of “weaponising the issue” for public sympathy.
This dispute emerges amid growing scrutiny of social media governance and political speech regulation in India. Media analysts point out that platforms face mounting pressure from governments to moderate content, especially in politically sensitive contexts. Critics warn that misuse of content-moderation rules could stifle legitimate political debate.
In past years, Akhilesh Yadav and his party have raised concerns about censorship. In 2025, for example, six police officers were suspended in Uttar Pradesh for posting objectionable remarks about Yadav on social media — an incident that prompted outcry over official complicity in online attacks. Such episodes have amplified SP’s narrative that its social media operations face systemic targeting.
Some legal commentators emphasise that while social media platforms retain discretion over content suppression, transparency and the right to appeal remain essential safeguards. Without clarity from Meta, observers say the public cannot assess whether due process was followed or whether political bias played a role.
On Saturday, party leaders convened in Lucknow, demanding Meta reinstate Yadav’s account and submit an explanation. They signalled plans to escalate the matter to statutory bodies overseeing information technology and digital rights. Meanwhile, SP cadre launched protest hashtags on other platforms, characterising the suspension as emblematic of shrinking space for opposition.