NEW DELHI: The social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk, accused the Indian government of orchestrating a sweeping digital censorship effort by ordering the blockage of 2,355 accounts, among them the popular Reuters and ReutersWorld handles. According to X, the directive, issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, came with a tight one-hour deadline and provided no justification. Non-compliance posed the threat of criminal penalties against X’s local staff.
X expressed alarm, calling the move “ongoing press censorship in India” and saying it is exploring legal options. The platform urged affected users to pursue judicial recourse.
Government Denies Fresh Order—Accuses X of Delay
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) responded forcefully, denying any new blocking request on July 3. It stated that as soon as Reuters’ accounts were withheld, the government instructed X to restore access “immediately,” but X “unnecessarily exploited technicalities” and delayed unblocking by more than 21 hours.
The ministry emphasised that it has no intent to censor prominent international media platforms, highlighting a series of hourly follow-ups from the evening of July 6.
Stakes and Sovereignty in Digital Speech Debate
Press Freedom Under Pressure?
X’s move to publicly accuse the government signals a sharp escalation in tensions between tech platforms and regulatory authorities. The platform’s suggestion of “press censorship” raises broader concerns about media access, information reliability, and executive-level transparency.
Legal Rights and Platform Liability
Indian authorities maintain the power to order content takedowns under Section 69A when national security or sovereignty is implicated. X, however, contends that procedural safeguards were breached. The platform is now exploring legal remedies, while officials say institutional mechanisms—like judicial review—ensure any future takedowns are properly scrutinised .
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Next in Court and Code
With X threatening legal action and the government reaffirming its policy stance, this conflict is likely to evolve into a courtroom showdown. Observers suggest courts may need to clarify the balance between national security prerogatives and digital speech freedoms. Any ruling could set critical precedents regarding how Section 69A is interpreted in the age of social media giants.
Meanwhile, this incident underscores the delicate role platforms like X play in mediating global news access and upholding democratic discourse. As regulatory pressures mount, both parties are expected to refine their approaches, whether through legal amendments, public communication protocols, or enhanced transparency measures.
About the Author – Sahhil Taware is a B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, with a keen interest in corporate law and tech-driven legal change.