New Delhi: A diplomatic and digital row erupted over the weekend as two key social media accounts belonging to global news agency Reuters @Reuters and @ReutersWorld were suddenly withheld in India. The unexpected restriction, enforced by X (formerly Twitter), caught both Indian users and international media observers by surprise, as it raised fresh questions about transparency, platform accountability, and freedom of the press.
Users in India trying to access these accounts are now met with a message that reads: “Account withheld in India in response to a legal demand.” However, the Indian government has firmly denied issuing any directive to restrict the handles. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which oversees such regulatory actions, released a statement clarifying, “There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold Reuters handle. We are working with X to resolve the issue.”
According to official sources, the sudden restriction may have stemmed from a technical or procedural error on the part of X, rather than an active governmental intervention. “It appears X may have acted on an old or withdrawn request, possibly dating back to earlier takedown demands during the Operation Sindoor period,” a senior official told PTI. “The content in question is no longer relevant, and the matter should not have resurfaced.”
Indeed, the timeline aligns with earlier tensions between the Indian government and social media platforms. In the wake of Operation Sindoor, which involved major national security operations across multiple states, Indian authorities had issued a large number of content removal requests over 8,000, according to a post by X’s Global Government Affairs team. Though Reuters’ account was included in that list, the enforcement of such a takedown never occurred until now.
The current withholding seems to be an unintended enforcement of an outdated or rescinded order, and the government has requested an explanation from X and asked that the account access be restored without delay.
This incident adds fuel to the ongoing legal conflict between X and the Indian government, currently playing out in the Karnataka High Court. At the heart of the dispute is Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, under which the government has the power to issue takedown orders for digital content deemed unlawful or harmful to national interest.
X, owned by Elon Musk, has challenged what it perceives as arbitrary and excessive use of these powers, arguing that the current system allows even low-level officials to demand the removal of content or entire accounts, without meaningful oversight or judicial scrutiny.
During a recent court hearing, X’s legal counsel described the current application of Section 79 as dangerously broad, stating that it allows “any Tom, Dick, or Harry officer” to direct takedowns without proportional checks. X has maintained that while it respects local laws, it is also committed to protecting the global standards of free speech and press freedom.
The restriction of Reuters’ accounts even temporarily has raised eyebrows within media and diplomatic circles. As one of the world’s most trusted international news agencies, Reuters’ online presence is critical for real-time updates on politics, economics, and global affairs. The incident is being viewed by many as not just a technical glitch, but a symbolic flashpoint in the evolving relationship between digital platforms, governments, and press institutions.
While affiliated Reuters handles such as @ReutersAsia, @ReutersTech, and @ReutersFactCheck remain accessible, the blockade of the two main accounts has already sparked debates around press censorship, algorithmic governance, and the opaque nature of digital enforcement mechanisms.
Some media watchdogs have urged both the Indian government and X to increase transparency in takedown procedures, including public release of legal requests and platform responses, as is standard practice in democracies. Others are calling for independent review boards to oversee content regulation decisions, particularly when they involve major news outlets or public interest information.
The situation remains fluid. Reuters and X are reportedly in direct communication with MeitY officials to investigate the cause of the restriction and work toward a resolution. Meanwhile, Indian users are turning to VPNs and mirror platforms to access the blocked content.
This latest development underscores the growing tensions between platform governance, state authority, and digital journalism. As India moves deeper into its digital age, the need for a balanced, transparent, and fair framework to manage online content without undermining democratic values has never been more urgent. For now, Reuters’ voice may be muted on Indian timelines but the conversation it has sparked is louder than ever.