“Very concerned” to press censorship in India, as the accounts were banned Freedom of news news

The social media platform says that the Indian government ordered last week to prevent 2,355 accounts, including Reuters handles.

“Very concerned about the ongoing press censorship in India” after New Delhi ordered the social media platform to ban more than 2,300 accounts, including Reuters news agency.

X restored a Reuters news account in India on Sunday, a day after the Indian government had requested by the Indian government to suspend, noting a legal request.

Several other banned accounts were also restored, as New Delhi rejected its role in removal.

On Tuesday’s publication, X, which was promoted by Elon Musk, said that on July 3, the Indian government ordered a ban on 2,355 accounts in India under Article 69A of the IT Information Technology Law.

S. said: “The lack of compliance has occurred to criminal responsibility. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology called for immediate measures-within one hour-without providing justification, and asks the accounts to remain banned until further notice.”

“After a public protest, the government asked X to cancel the Reuters and Reutersworld ban.”

On July 3, 2025, the Indian government X ordered 2,355 accounts in India, including international news such as Reuters and ReutersworldUnder Article 69A of the Information Technology Law. Lack of compliance with criminal responsibility. The Ministry of Electronics and Information …

International Government Affairs (@Globalfairs) July 8, 2025

According to Post Post by the Ani News Agency, a Reuters partner in India, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Technology and Information Technology in India, said the government did not issue a “new ban” on July 3, and he had no “intention to prevent any prominent international news channels”, including Reuters and Reuters World.

“The moment was banned by Reuters and Reuters World on the X platform in India, the government immediately wrote to X to cancel their ban.” “The government was constantly engaged and followed up with X from late 5 July 2025.”

The spokesperson said that X “undistically used the technical aspects participating in this process and did not separate” accounts.

India’s Information Technology Law, which was approved in 2000, allows government officials appointed to claim Content removal One of the social media platforms, they see that local laws are violated, including on the basis of national security or if the publication threatens public order.

X, previously known as Twitter, was inconsistent with the government of India due to requests for re -content. In March, the company filed a lawsuit against the federal government on a new government site, the company says that the expansion of the removal authorities to “countless” government officials. The issue continues.

India, the world’s largest democracy, is ranked regularly among the five best countries for the number of requests that the government has made to remove social media content.

Rights groups say freedom of expression and Free Press has been threatened in India since Hindu National Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014.

New Delhi imposed a comprehensive internet closure during periods of turmoil.

In April, the government launched a comprehensive social media campaign, and banned more than ten Pakistani channels on YouTube, allegedly spreading “provocative” content after the attack Kashmir Indian Director. Many of these have been restored.

New Delhi has also imposed an intermittent interruption on the Internet in the northeastern state Ethnic violence.

The government justified the ban on the Internet and social media as ways to reduce the misleading information in a country that can hundreds of millions access to some of the cheapest Internet prices across the mobile phone in the world.

In its publication on Tuesday, X said it was so Explore all legal options It is available to censorship, but added that he is “restricted under Indian law in its ability to achieve legal challenges.”

“We urge affected users to follow legal treatments through the courts,” he said.