The recent controversy between India and social media platform X (formerly Twitter) over the temporary blocking of Reuters and ReutersWorld accounts has sparked concerns about press freedom, misinformation, and procedural confusion.
What Exactly Happened?
-
On July 3, 2025, X claimed it received a blocking order from the Indian government under Section 69A of the IT Act, demanding it block 2,355 accounts, including prominent handles like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.
-
X stated the government demanded action within one hour, with no justification, and warned of criminal liability for non-compliance.
-
The platform complied but later expressed concern over press censorship, and said it was exploring legal options.
India's Response:
-
The Indian government strongly denied issuing any fresh blocking orders on July 3.
-
It emphasized:
-
No intention to block any international news organizations.
-
The moment Reuters was found withheld, the government requested X to restore access.
-
-
The restoration of Reuters accounts took over 21 hours, which the government blamed on X’s “exploitation of technicalities.”
Underlying Cause: Operation Sindoor
-
According to PTI sources, the blocking may trace back to an old order dated May 7, issued during Operation Sindoor (a major counter-terror operation).
-
That order, however, was never enforced, and it appears X acted on it belatedly and incorrectly.
-
The government said it has now sought clarification from X and instructed them to reverse the action.
Additional Details:
-
Other Reuters accounts like @ReutersAsia, @ReutersTechNews, @ReutersFactCheck, etc., were not affected.
-
Affected users saw:
“Account withheld. @Reuters has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.”
Broader Implications:
-
Transparency Gap:
-
The situation exposes lack of real-time coordination between platforms and government agencies regarding old or unclear legal orders.
-
-
Press Freedom Concerns:
-
Even a temporary withholding of a reputed international news agency’s account raises red flags about censorship, intentional or not.
-
-
Accountability:
-
Both sides appear to be shifting blame—X on India's legal demands, and India on X’s execution errors.
-
Final Takeaway:
This is a case of miscommunication and delayed enforcement of a past order, mistakenly interpreted as a new act of censorship. While the situation has been resolved with Reuters accounts restored, it underscores the need for clearer protocols, quicker communication, and safeguards to avoid accidental censorship, especially involving global news platforms.
