X posted that it is “deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India” following a directive from New Delhi to disable over 2,300 user profiles, which included the Reuters news agency’s Reuters and ReutersWorld feeds.
On Sunday, July 6, X turned the Reuters News feed back on in India, just a day after it had been taken down due to a legal notice from the government. The company said it stopped the feed after getting that notice.
A large portion of the 2,355 accounts specified in the order were similarly reinstated. The government of New Delhi, however, maintains it did not request any such bans.
In a July 8 post, X backed by billionaire Elon Musk, stated that on July 3 the Indian authorities invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to order the removal of 2,355 accounts. The platform warned it could face legal prosecution for non-adherence.
On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information…
— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) July 8, 2025
“Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action, within one hour, without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice,” the message read.
The announcement also noted that following widespread criticism, New Delhi had requested X to restore the Reuters channels.“After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld,” it added.
Government denies ordering any account bans
A representative from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology told ANI, Reuters’ local partner, that no new directive was issued on July 3 and that its intention was not to mute prominent global news outlets.
The spokesperson said that as soon as X blocked Reuters and Reuters World in India, the government immediately asked for their reinstatement. They added that officials worked late into the night of July 5, 2025, to sort it out.
Official Spokesperson, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "The Government has not issued any fresh blocking order on 3rd July, 2025 and has no intention to block any prominent international News Channels including Reuters and Reuters World. The moment…
— ANI (@ANI) July 8, 2025
The official added X “unnecessarily exploited technicalities involved around the process and didn’t unblock”.
Passed in 2000, India’s Information Technology Act empowers certain officers to compel online platforms to eliminate material deemed harmful to national security or public stability. Civil liberties organizations contend that its sweeping scope permits excessive censorship of legitimate content.
X continues to clash with Indian government over content removal
The platform, which rebranded from Twitter, has repeatedly clashed with Indian authorities over content-ban demands.
In March, it initiated legal action against the central government to challenge a new official website that would expand takedown authority to numerous officials; that lawsuit remains unresolved.
With its large population, India is often among the top five countries asking to take down online content. Rights groups say press freedom and open discussion have been under growing pressure since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014.
The government has also imposed network blackouts amid civil disturbances.
For instance, in April, authorities blocked over a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels following an incident in Indian-administered Kashmir, labeling the content “provocative”; only some of those channels have been reinstated. Moreover, intermittent shutdowns have been enforced in Manipur since clashes erupted in 2023.
Officials argue these measures are vital to prevent the spread of false information in a nation where vast numbers rely on extremely low-cost mobile internet.
In the July 8 update, X indicated it was considering various judicial strategies but felt its hands were tied by local regulations. “We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts,” it added.
