The GOI has removed Bitchat App from the Apple store: https://www.deccanherald.com/business/bitchat-removed-from-apples-india-app-store-following-governments-demand-jack-dorsey-4169515

---------------------------------------------------

Install Bitchat by downloading from a trusted source and sideloading:

You can sideload BitChat on Android without jailbreaking (on Android, this process is simply called "sideloading" and does not require rooting or jailbreaking the device).

Here is how to do it in a few quick steps:

Download the APK File

• Open your Android web browser.
• Download the BitChat APK file to your device from GitHub: https://github.com/permissionlesstech/bitchat-android/releases

Enable Unknown Sources

Android blocks apps from outside the Google Play Store by default. You need to grant your browser permission to install it:

1. Open your device Settings.
2. Go to Apps (or Apps & Notifications).
3. Tap Special app access (often found under "Advanced" or the three-dot menu).
4. Select Install unknown apps.
5. Tap the browser you used (e.g., Chrome) and toggle on Allow from this source.

Install the App

1. Open your browser's Downloads folder or use a File Manager app to find the downloaded .apk file.
2. Tap the BitChat APK file.
3. Confirm by tapping Install.

---------------------------------------------------

How-to: Sideload apps on iOS devices without jailbreaking or PC

Visit https://github.com/opsec-bot/IOS-Sideloading-No-Jailbreak to learn how to sideload apps on your iOS device.

---------------------------------------------------

ProtestChat On Github

Nisarga Adhikary has developed a Bitchat alternative called ProtestChat.

ProtestChat is an encrypted messaging tool with no internet, no cell tower, and no server. Phones relay for each other over Bluetooth mesh, so it keeps working during internet shutdowns and inside cellular jammers

Visit: https://github.com/ni5arga/protestchat

New Delhi, 3 October 2026

An Apple App Review notice published today by Jack Dorsey on X records that BitChat has been removed from the India App Store "per demand from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology", issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the ground that the application "includes content that is illegal in India". The notice adds that BitChat's TestFlight builds are no longer available for testing in India. It does not identify the content said to be illegal or the ground under Section 69A invoked. The blocking order has not been published. The Internet Freedom Foundation condemns the order and calls for its immediate publication and withdrawal.

BitChat relays end-to-end encrypted messages between nearby phones over Bluetooth mesh. It has no servers and hosts no content of its own. What travels through it is the private speech of its users, so the claim that the application "includes" illegal content is incoherent. The State's actual objection stands recorded in the notices the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre issued on 23 July 2026 to GitHub, Google and Apple against BitChat, Briar and Bridgefy which stated that such applications work even during internet shutdowns and hamper lawful interception, attribution and traceability. Those notices, issued under Section 79(3)(b) were reportedly withdrawn after public disclosure. The same end has now been pursued through Section 69A. The objection is to capability of an application, not to content it transmits. A citizen's ability to speak to another citizen while the State has switched the internet off is not a ground of restriction under Section 69A or Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Section 69A survived constitutional scrutiny in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) because of its safeguards which included the need for a reasoned, recorded order, committee review, and a hearing to the originator under Rule 8 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, which the Delhi High Court enforced in Tanul Thakur v. Union of India (2022). Further, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) requires that orders restricting fundamental rights be published and adopt the least restrictive measure. However, it appears in this instance, each safeguard has been evaded. A secret order blocking an entire application, rather than any identified unlawful information, is the most restrictive and disproprotionate measure available. Further, the confidentiality claimed under Rule 16 cannot defeat the right to challenge an order, and the constitutionality of this blocking regime is itself pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

While removal from the App Store does not delete BitChat from phones, it stops new downloads and security updates, leaving existing users on unpatched versions, and it ends security testing in India through TestFlight. During the Jantar Mantar protests, when mobile internet was suspended and jammers were deployed, Bluetooth mesh messaging was a channel of last resort through which young people coordinated their safety. To our knowledge, Apple has removed BitChat on a government's demand in only one other country. This is in China, in April this year.

Our demands

1. MeitY must publish the blocking order, the ground invoked and the record of the committee's proceedings, and serve the developers with a copy and an opportunity of hearing.

2. The direction must be withdrawn. Any specific unlawful use must be met with targeted proceedings under due process, not the removal of a communications tool for everyone.

3. Apple must disclose the demand in its transparency reporting and notify its users in India, and must state whether parallel directions have been received in respect of other app stores.

4. The secrecy of the blocking regime must end. The Blocking Rules, 2009 should be amended to require publication of orders and notice to originators, without awaiting the outcome of the pending constitutional challenge.

The Internet Freedom Foundation will file applications under the Right to Information Act seeking a copy of the order, and stands ready to assist the developers and affected users in India.

Today I visited Shri Narsingh Hanuman Mandir in Chandni Chowk in the capital City of Delhi, India and this might be the last time I'm going to any prominent temple in India not because I've lost faith but it's because the overall experience has become increasingly difficult for me. It shouldn't be normalised standing 3-4 hours in a queue just to be removed within 10 seconds in front of the deity.

The crowds are enormous, queues can stretch for hours, and during peak periods the waiting conditions can be exhausting. I understand that managing thousands or even lakhs of devotees is extremely challenging, especially during festivals and holidays. No crowd-management system is going to make that completely effortless.

What bothers me more is the difference between ordinary queues and VIP or fast-track darshan. Isn't that everyone equal in darbaar of the almighty? This corrupt management truly disheartens me. By nonsense at all there comes an arguable reason that temples need revenue and that paid services can help manage demand and infrastructure. But when one devotee waits for hours while another can significantly reduce that wait by just shoving their government job, it truly creates a feeling that access to a place of worship is becoming increasingly commercialised.

There should be clear rules regarding the timings, reasonable limits regarding age and medical conditions and proper capacity management so that the general queue doesn't become an unbearable experience.

Infrastructure also needs to keep pace with the number of visitors. Better queue systems, shaded waiting areas, drinking water, toilets, medical facilities, clearly marked entry and exit routes, real-time crowd information and trained personnel could make a huge difference. Just to tell you these mandirs receive donations in crores from a lot of people apart from the regular donation box.

And perhaps technology can help too—time-slot-based darshan and digital tokens could spread visitors throughout the day instead of having everyone arrive at the same time.

Irrespective of the religion we all want the systems surrounding them made it easier for ordinary devotees to experience that spirituality without spending hours in confusion, exhaustion and overcrowded queues.