New Delhi: Elon Musk's microblogging giant X has criticised the Indian government over what it called "press censorship", following the blocking of the accounts of international news agency Reuters in India. The government had, however, denied any role in the news agency's social media account going offline in India.
"There is no requirement from the government of India to withhold Reuters, and we are continuously working with X to resolve the problem," a government spokesperson said on Sunday.
X, however, said the government on July 3 ordered it to block 2,355 accounts in India, including Reuters, "within one hour without providing justification."
X said they had no choice but to obey the order as they could be penalised if they didn't. The company asked those whose accounts have been blocked in India to look for a remedy from courts.
"On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like Reuters and Reuters World, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability," X's Global Government Affairs team said in a post today.
"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. After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock Reuters and Reuters World," it said.
"We are deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India due to these blocking orders. X is exploring all legal options available. Unlike users located in India, X is restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges against these executive orders. We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts," said the company earlier known as Twitter before Elon Musk bought it.
X has frequently criticised the government over orders on blocking accounts. In March, the social media giant sued the Centre, accusing it of misusing information technology laws to create an "unlawful blocking regime".
In a petition filed in the Karnataka High Court, X cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case, which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act that criminalised sending offensive messages on communication devices.
X's petition also said the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology told central ministries and state governments and "effectively tens of thousands of local police officers" that they were authorised to issue information blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b), outside the Section 69A process.
Under Section 79(3)(b), an IT intermediary [such as X] loses immunity from liability if it does not "expeditiously remove or disable access" to material flagged by a government agency as linked to an unlawful act.
X's petition alleged the use of Section 79(3)(b) circumvented Section 69A, which empowered the government to issue directions to block public access to information, but added safeguards.
Source: NDTV