X briefly blocks Reuters accounts in India; access returns after government denial
Indian users trying to read @Reuters and @ReutersWorld on Saturday evening met a grey screen that read:
“This account has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.”
The notice on X (formerly Twitter) lasted for almost 24 hours before both feeds re-appeared late Sunday.
X told Reuters that the takedown was carried out “to comply with local law,” then informed the agency by e-mail, “At this time, we are no longer withholding access in India to your account.”
Government says it never asked
New Delhi moved quickly to distance itself from the episode. “There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold the Reuters handle. We are working with X to resolve the problem,” a spokesperson for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said on Sunday morning.
The Press Information Bureau repeated the statement a few hours later, adding that no ministry had filed a fresh blocking request.
What triggered the block?
Neither X nor the government has identified the post, or posts, at issue. Reuters staff received a routine platform notice on 16 May citing the Information Technology Act, 2000, and warning that unspecified material “may be illegal in India.” The May notice gave no agency name and did not ask for content removal; it simply alerted the newsroom that the entire account could be “withheld” locally.
One senior Indian official offered a possible clue: the freeze might trace back to “Operation Sindoor,” a military action along the Line of Control in early May. During that operation the government ordered X to mask more than 8,000 handles, accusing them of endangering national security. Reuters was not on the published list, but some officials now suggest the platform “may have acted on an older request in error.”
Reuters and X respond
A Reuters spokesperson said the agency “is in contact with X to understand why the accounts were unavailable and to ensure uninterrupted service to readers in India.” X has not issued a detailed public explanation beyond its standard legal-demand template. The company’s rules state that it will “withhold entire accounts” only when compelled by a valid order and when targeted removal of individual posts is impossible.
Press-freedom concerns
Journalists’ unions and digital-rights lawyers called the freeze “disturbing”, pointing out that Reuters employs more than 2,600 reporters in 165 countries and has 25 million followers on its primary handle. The Editors Guild of India urged the government to “make public any order that restricts access to a bona-fide news organisation.” Free-speech advocates told The Economic Times that the lack of transparency “undermines confidence both in the platform and in official processes.”
Legal backdrop
Section 69A of the IT Act empowers officials to direct intermediaries to block information that threatens national security, public order or friendly relations with other states. Orders are secret, and companies face prison terms if they disclose them. X is already fighting a separate lawsuit over a new web-portal that streamlines these takedown directives; the next hearing is scheduled for 8 July.
The Reuters incident follows a string of high-profile blocks. In May, X withheld the Chinese outlets Global Times and Xinhua after they shared Kashmir-related posts, then restored them days later. Civil-society groups argue that opaque enforcement encourages over-compliance by platforms seeking to avoid penalties.
International reaction
Foreign correspondents in New Delhi said they had never seen an entire Reuters feed disappear inside a democratic country. “If this can happen to one of the world’s largest news agencies, smaller outlets have little hope of fighting opaque orders,” commented Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, in a post on X. (The remark was visible globally and was not withheld.)
What happens next?
The ministry has asked X to submit a written explanation for the sudden block, including the source of the legal demand and the precise statutory clause invoked. X representatives have yet to confirm whether they will publish the request in the platform’s transparency portal.
Why it matters
India is X’s third-largest market, and its regulatory stance is watched closely elsewhere. A study by the Committee to Protect Journalists ranks the country among those making the most content-removal demands worldwide. Western diplomats in New Delhi said the Reuters blackout “reinforces worries about shrinking space for independent reporting.”
Outlook
Sunday’s restoration ends the immediate disruption, yet key questions remain unanswered: Did an older military-related order misfire? Was the request lodged by a regional court? How many similar blocks go unreported?
Until authorities, public or corporate, release the paperwork, the exact cause will stay hidden, and the uncertainty will hover over every international newsroom operating in India.
