Reuters’ Reach and Role in India
Reuters, one of the world’s most trusted international news agencies, holds a vital position in India’s media ecosystem. Known for its timely, fact-checked, and unbiased journalism, Reuters delivers essential global updates through its website, newswire, and social media handles, including on X (formerly Twitter). Indian readers, journalists, and policy analysts rely on Reuters for objective coverage on geopolitics, economics, and world affairs.
So, when Indian users noticed that Reuters’ X account was suddenly inaccessible on Saturday night (July 6), it sparked confusion and concern across the country. A message from X cited a “legal demand” for the account’s suspension in India, but the government denied any such directive—marking the latest flashpoint in the ongoing tensions between X and Indian authorities over content moderation and legal compliance.
Legal Demand or Technical Misfire?
On July 6, Indian users trying to access @Reuters on X were greeted with the message: “@Reuters has been withheld in IN (India) in response to a legal demand.” Soon after, access to @ReutersWorld was also restricted. However, other affiliated accounts like @ReutersTech, @ReutersAsia, and @ReutersFactCheck remained accessible—suggesting selective enforcement rather than a blanket block.
Government officials quickly responded to the uproar. A spokesperson from the Press Information Bureau (PIB) clarified, “There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold Reuters.” The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) confirmed that no fresh takedown request had been issued, and it appeared to be a mistake or miscommunication from X’s side.
A government source stated: “The government did not ask X to block Reuters… It seems like a technical issue or confusion.” They also noted that the government was in communication with X to resolve the matter swiftly.
The May Connection: Operation Sindoor and Delayed Action
Digging deeper, media reports indicated that X might have acted on an older government order issued during Operation Sindoor in May 2024, India’s military operation involving Pakistan. The original takedown order was issued on May 7 but was never enforced. It appears X belatedly executed that request—possibly by mistake—on July 6, months after the operation concluded.
An official noted: “An order was issued on May 7 but it was not enforced. X seems to have enforced that order now, which is a mistake on their part.” This timing raised suspicions about whether X had re-evaluated past legal requests or applied them indiscriminately.
Complicating the matter further, the Indian government had also been criticized earlier in the week for unblocking several Pakistani-origin social media handles—only to re-block them within 24 hours. This inconsistency led to speculation that Reuters may have been mistakenly caught in a broader enforcement sweep tied to that original May order.
Reuters Responds and X Walks It Back
Reuters confirmed the restriction and said it was working with X to restore access. On Sunday evening, both @Reuters and @ReutersWorld were reinstated. X informed Reuters in an email: “At this time, we are no longer withholding access in INDIA to your account.” However, the platform did not specify what triggered the action or clarify the nature of the “legal demand.”
A previous email from X, dated May 16, had informed Reuters about an unspecified legal request from India under the Information Technology Act, 2000, which governs digital content in the country. While X usually notifies users when a legal request is made, it did not disclose the specific content flagged or which Indian agency had raised the concern.
Notably, Sanjay Jaju, Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting—listed as the official point of contact in such matters—did not respond to media queries.
Tense History: X vs. Indian Government
This incident is not an isolated event. X has been entangled in several disputes with Indian authorities over content moderation, legal compliance, and government takedown orders. In March 2025, X sued the Indian government, alleging that a newly launched government website unfairly expanded the power of officials to censor content.
The government, in turn, accused X of misrepresenting the website, saying it merely served as a portal to notify tech companies of harmful content—not as a “censorship portal” as X described.
These repeated flashpoints underscore the uneasy balance between regulatory compliance and freedom of expression in India. Under the IT Act, 2000, the government has the authority to request content removal that threatens national security or public order. Yet, the lack of transparency about what constitutes such violations has raised serious concerns among digital rights advocates.
Lessons in Transparency and Due Process
The temporary suspension of Reuters’ X account in India, followed by its swift reinstatement, reveals the fragility of digital access in the age of state oversight and opaque algorithmic decisions. The lack of clear communication from both X and the Indian government sowed confusion and raised alarms about arbitrary enforcement.
For Reuters, the episode underlines the risk faced by international media operating in restrictive regulatory environments. For X, it shows the consequences of inconsistent policy implementation and weak coordination with national authorities. And for the Indian public, it poses broader questions about the reliability of platforms and the future of digital freedom.
As global news and discourse increasingly shift online, the need for transparent, accountable, and timely communication—especially around censorship or legal enforcement—has never been more critical. The Reuters episode may have ended quickly, but it signals a deeper fault line that India and tech platforms must address if they are to coexist in a digitally sovereign yet open information ecosystem.
(With agency inputs)
