Social media platform says the Indian authorities ordered it final week to dam 2,355 accounts, together with two Reuters handles.
X says it’s “deeply involved about ongoing press censorship in India” after New Delhi ordered the social media platform to dam greater than 2,300 accounts, together with two Reuters information company handles.
X restored the Reuters Information account in India on Sunday, a day after it mentioned it was requested by the Indian authorities to droop it, citing a authorized demand.
Many different blocked accounts had been additionally restored, with New Delhi denying its position within the takedown.
In a submit on Tuesday, X, promoted by billionaire Elon Musk, mentioned the Indian authorities on July 3 ordered it to dam 2,355 accounts in India beneath Part 69A of the Info Expertise (IT) Act.
“Non-compliance risked felony legal responsibility. The Ministry of Electronics and Info Expertise demanded instant motion – inside one hour – with out offering justification, and required the accounts to stay blocked till additional discover,” X mentioned.
“After public outcry, the federal government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.”
On July 3, 2025, the Indian authorities ordered X to dam 2,355 accounts in India, together with worldwide information retailers like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, beneath Part 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked felony legal responsibility. The Ministry of Electronics and Info…
— World Authorities Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) July 8, 2025
In response to a submit on X submit by the ANI information company, Reuters’ companion in India, a spokesperson for India’s Ministry of Electronics and Info Expertise mentioned the federal government didn’t difficulty “any recent blocking order” on July 3 and had “no intention to dam any distinguished worldwide information channels”, together with Reuters and Reuters World.
“The second Reuters and Reuters World had been blocked on X platform in India, instantly the federal government wrote to X to unblock them,” the submit mentioned. “The federal government repeatedly engaged and vigorously pursued with X from the late evening of July 5, 2025.”
The spokesperson mentioned X had “unnecessarily exploited technicalities concerned across the course of and didn’t unblock” the accounts.
India’s IT regulation, handed in 2000, permits designated authorities officers to demand the takedown of content material from social media platforms they deem to violate native legal guidelines, together with on the grounds of nationwide safety or if a submit threatens public order.
X, previously generally known as Twitter, has lengthy been at odds with India’s authorities over content-removal requests. In March, the corporate sued the federal authorities over a brand new authorities web site the corporate says expands takedown powers to “numerous” authorities officers. The case is continuous.
India, the world’s largest democracy, recurrently ranks among the many prime 5 international locations for the variety of requests made by a authorities to take away social media content material.
Rights teams say freedom of expression and free press is beneath risk in India since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took workplace in 2014.
New Delhi has recurrently imposed blanket web shutdowns in periods of unrest.
In April, the federal government launched a sweeping crackdown on social media, banning greater than a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels for allegedly spreading “provocative” content material following an assault in Indian-administered Kashmir. A lot of these have been restored.
New Delhi has additionally imposed intermittent web outages within the northeastern state of Manipur since 2023 within the wake of ethnic violence.
The federal government has justified web and social media bans as methods to curb disinformation in a rustic the place a whole lot of thousands and thousands have entry to a few of the least expensive cell web charges on this planet.
In its submit on Tuesday, X mentioned it was exploring all authorized choices out there over censorship, however added that it was “restricted by Indian regulation in its capability to convey authorized challenges”.
“We urge affected customers to pursue authorized treatments via the courts,” it mentioned.
