Indian Army allows Instagram viewing for soldiers, keeps ban on posting, interaction
New Delhi: The Indian Army has quietly updated its social media policy, allowing soldiers and officers to access Instagram, but strictly as silent viewers. According to sources, personnel can use the platform only to watch and monitor content. Posting, liking or commenting remains prohibited, and all existing rules governing digital behaviour continue to apply.
The revised instructions have been circulated across army units and departments. The objective, sources said, is to let soldiers stay informed, track developments online and build awareness, without compromising operational security. Personnel are also permitted to flag fake, misleading or suspicious posts to senior officers.
ALSO READ: Bengaluru woman groped, beaten, dragged on road after rejecting man’s advances
The Army has, over the years, repeatedly tightened and revised its social media guidelines, especially for platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram. The restrictions stem from security concerns, particularly instances where soldiers were targeted through “honey traps” by hostile foreign agencies, resulting in the inadvertent sharing of sensitive information.
Responding to a question on how the forces balance discipline with the digital habits of Generation Z, Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi recently addressed the issue at the Chanakya Defence Dialogue.
Acknowledging the challenge, General Dwivedi said young cadets arriving at the National Defence Academy often struggle to part with their phones. “It takes three to six months to convince them that there is life without a phone,” he remarked, while adding that smartphones today are also a necessity.
The Army chief stressed how important smartphones are for preserving family ties, while noting that phones are useful tools for reading, learning, and handling personal obligations. He also mentioned that soldiers deployed in remote areas rely on their phones to view photos of their newborn children, check on ageing parents, or maintain contact with their wives.
However, General Dwivedi drew a firm line when it comes to engaging on social media. He emphasised the difference between “reacting” and “responding,” cautioning soldiers against impulsive online responses. “Reacting is immediate. Responding involves thought and analysis,” he said, adding that army personnel are currently permitted to use platforms like X only for viewing, not replying. “Reply after you retire,” he remarked, describing this restraint as a strategic message to adversaries: the Army does not react, it responds.
Army personnel were barred from joining any social media groups until 2019. Following repeated cases of misuse, the rules were further tightened in 2020, with soldiers instructed to delete 89 mobile applications. Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre told Parliament in 2017, that social media guidelines were framed to safeguard information and prevent misuse.
Over time, limited access has been restored under strict supervision. Platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, X, LinkedIn, Quora, Telegram and WhatsApp are now permitted, but only within clearly defined boundaries. The Army also runs its own official social media handles, which serve as authorised sources of information.
Under the updated framework, soldiers may use social media to gather general information, upload resumes or explore professional opportunities, provided all security protocols are strictly followed and no instructions are violated.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda
Washington (AP): The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centres on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess,' as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The tariffs decision doesn't stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump's actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court's emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women's cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn't even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's USD 500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some USD 3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than USD 133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.
