New Delhi: A controversy has erupted between social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and the Indian government after the temporary blocking of the official X accounts of Reuters and Reuters World in India. The platform has accused the government of enforcing censorship under the guise of legal demands, while Indian authorities have categorically denied issuing any such blocking orders.
The issue came to light when X’s Global Government Affairs team revealed that on July 3, they received an official order under Section 69A of India’s IT Act, instructing them to block over 2,300 accounts, including those belonging to Reuters. The order, they claimed, lacked specific reasoning and was issued without disclosing the identity of the officials behind it. X further alleged that it was threatened with criminal penalties if the directive wasn’t enforced within an hour.
Following widespread criticism and mounting concerns over media freedom, the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology responded, stating that no official directive was issued to block Reuters’ accounts. According to the ministry, the accounts were inadvertently included in a broader list due to a technical error. Once the mistake was identified, the government said it immediately directed X to restore access.
Despite this explanation, X maintained that the Reuters accounts remained inaccessible in India for over 21 hours. It labeled the incident as part of a troubling pattern of press censorship and confirmed it was exploring legal options to challenge the growing number of takedown requests issued by Indian authorities.
The incident has attracted global attention, especially since Reuters is a globally recognized and trusted news agency. The brief suspension raised concerns among press freedom advocates, who fear that legal tools intended for national security and public order are now being used to silence independent journalism.
This isn't the first confrontation between X and Indian authorities. Earlier this year, X filed a lawsuit challenging India’s expanded online censorship mechanisms, alleging they allowed government agencies to order removals without transparent legal oversight.
While the Reuters accounts were eventually unblocked by July 6, the tension between the Indian government and tech platforms remains unresolved. As X pursues legal remedies and continues to raise alarm over the pressures it faces, the broader debate on digital rights, transparency, and media freedom in the country intensifies.
Observers warn that unless mechanisms are introduced to ensure accountability and judicial scrutiny in takedown requests, such incidents will continue to erode trust in democratic institutions and the right to free expression online.