The Christian Association & Alliance for Social Action (CASA) states that its official Facebook page has been inaccessible in India since 25 December 2025, following a restriction reportedly initiated pursuant to a request from law enforcement authorities under the LDF-led Kerala State Government.
CASA notes with concern that the restriction was implemented without prior notice, a written explanation, or an opportunity to respond. To date, CASA has not received formal communication outlining the specific legal provisions, factual basis, or procedural process under which the action was taken. The absence of such information raises legitimate questions regarding due process and procedural transparency.
CASA has consistently engaged in peaceful, lawful advocacy aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of the Christian community and countering misinformation through fact-based communication. In the period preceding the restriction, CASA addressed and responded to several narratives circulating during the local body elections and the Christmas season. These responses were based on publicly available information and were intended to promote accuracy, accountability, and communal harmony.
CASA has also consistently engaged in peaceful, lawful, and constitutionally grounded advocacy, aimed at protecting the rights of the Christian community while upholding national interests, public order, and the unity and integrity of India. CASA’s work is rooted in respect for the Constitution of India and democratic institutions.
The restriction of CASA’s official digital platform has led to concerns about the application of content moderation and enforcement standards, particularly where civil society organisations engage in public discourse on social and political matters. CASA believes that the consistent and transparent application of such standards is essential to maintaining confidence in democratic processes.
CASA also observes that there has been limited response from opposition political parties on this issue. Parties that have previously expressed strong views on freedom of expression in other contexts—particularly relating to artistic or cultural expression—have not publicly addressed the restriction affecting CASA. This contrast has prompted questions about the uniform application of free-speech principles across different contexts.
In addition, CASA notes the limited coverage by mainstream media outlets, which has further constrained public understanding and scrutiny of the issue. A healthy democracy benefits from balanced reporting and open discussion, especially when questions of constitutional rights and digital access arise.
CASA further observes that a range of political, social, and religious organisations continue to maintain active digital platforms within the state. In this context, the restriction imposed on CASA’s page—in the absence of any known criminal case or prior violation—highlights the need for greater clarity regarding enforcement criteria and decision-making processes.
