Your question is hard to understand. I have no idea what you mean with " i.e remove it based on ACT xxx". Please revise.

Does the law have the ability to remove (if published) based on violation of some legal act?

I tried to revise your question so that it's easier to understand. I'm not sure if I got it right. In any case, the question could be improved by adding more details/examples.

I don't understand your question. As far as I know, different countries have different laws. An act may be legal while it is illegal in another country. So, please give us an example that illustrate your question, i.e. an example, where you see dozen negative studies on acts which are illegal, but not a single positive one..

Prohibiting research and publication in the first place is quite different from requiring retraction of already published work.

@Buffy "retraction" didn't appear in the original, lighthouse keeper added

The original wording was "remove" instead of "retract" (which isn't a thing).

What are "negative" and "positive" studies?

@lighthousekeeper The original wording seemingly referred to an act of law, which seems distinct from common usage of retraction. That said, I don't think any of us understand what the OP is asking, so an edit from them would be the most useful.

@user2768 It's unclear what could be removed here other than an article from a published volume (a.k.a. a retraction). I hope that OP can clarify.

Edited, the question was for all cases but as others have stated it being unclear, I have specified some case and one example

One key issue here is that retracting a paper does not actually remove it from the public record. A retracted paper typically stays on the journal's website, but is just marked as "retracted" indicating that the journal disavows it. It sounds like you are asking about some process that would actually delete the paper altogether, which is something that isn't really accomplished by any academic process.

@Nate Eldredge I'm not sure what is the correct term or process but any that will not make it unavailable to public so "retracted" should be included. Sorry I trying to understand the process and why I don't see all research.

I don't follow you. If this hypothetical "positive" research had been published but then retracted, I'd expect that you would still find it in searches.

Ok but where are all the studies on FGM conducted by countries and places where it is legal, as they are done in medical environment with sterile equipment and for medical reason. However all research I have ever seen personally or referenced are those that were done where it is illegal and by comparing to existing process; same way as male circumcision research does and shows. If those research can find benefits the one done in the country (where legal) would have much more yet they are no where to bee seen, which is why I am asking here if their are restrictions setup anywhere.

@Dev_anon101 Your hypothesis is that FGM is actually good and "positive findings" are being suppressed??

@NateElredge Thanks for the clarification about the term "retracted" - I stand corrected.

@Dev_anon101 I begin to understand your question and I actually find it very interesting. I think it would help if you could spell out one particular example with more details: Name a specific research article, a country where it is "not available", and an explanation what "not available" means (for example, concrete search engines where the article cannot be found).