For the moment, Supabase has advised users in India to use virtual private networks (VPNs) or update their domain name system (DNS) resolvers locally to circumvent the blocking. Credit: X/@supabase

For the moment, Supabase has advised users in India to use virtual private networks (VPNs) or update their domain name system (DNS) resolvers locally to circumvent the blocking. Credit: X/@supabase

The Union government earlier this week blocked access to Supabase, a website that allows programmers to develop and host their code. Supabase has grown in popularity in recent months among developers as a cheap way to host and serve their projects, by giving them flexibility to choose vendors and offering hosting prices that are competitive.

A senior government official declined to discuss the specific reasons for the website’s blocking, but said that “information was being shared that should not have been shared”, and that the relevant parties were “working it out”.

The official added that the site was blocked under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is unclear if Supabase, whose employees are spread around the world remotely, has engaged the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on the blocking order.

In an update on Friday (February 27, 2026), the firm said that it was following up “through all available channels to resolve this issue”.

Website blocking orders are rarely made public, and they propagate slowly, leading to initial speculation that certain operators — which were among the first to comply with the blocking order — had misconfigured their systems. The Delhi-based digital rights advocacy group Internet Freedom Foundation critiqued the lack of transparency in the process.

“Section 69A is implemented through the 2009 Blocking Rules, which contemplate a committee process and, where feasible, notice to intermediaries and identifiable originators. But they also impose strict confidentiality over requests and actions taken. When orders and reasons are secret by default, affected persons cannot test legality, necessity, proportionality, or factual errors except through protracted litigation,” the foundation said.

“In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A while relying on the existence of procedural safeguards and reasoned decisions, indicating that impacted users could approach court in writ remedies. However, due to the operational secrecy and providing copies of orders and notices those who are censored and prevented from obtaining judicial remedy,” it further said.

For the moment, Supabase has advised users in India to use virtual private networks (VPNs) or update their domain name system (DNS) resolvers locally to circumvent the blocking.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *