Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsSome links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
X said India ordered it to block 2,355 accounts, including @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, but India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) denied issuing a fresh order targeting Reuters. The accounts were reportedly withheld for users in India on July 5, 2025, then restored the following day. The public record cited in reporting does not include the full alleged order, so the competing descriptions remain unresolved.
What X alleged
In a statement made public on July 8, 2025, X said the Indian government had ordered it on July 3 to block 2,355 accounts in India. X said the list included Reuters’ @Reuters and @ReutersWorld accounts and that the direction was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Scroll reported X’s account of the demand, including its claim that it had one hour to comply, faced potential criminal liability for refusing, and was told to keep the accounts blocked until further notice.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
In the Moment: 40 Years of Reuters Photojournalism | $43.58 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Prudence Takes a Breath (Prudence Practices) | $11.39 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Goya: The Complete Prints (Classics) (Multilingual Edition) | $125.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Reuters: Our World Now 2 | $12.87 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
September 11: A Testimony | $20.29 | Buy on Amazon |
Those details are X’s allegations, not facts independently established by the order: the full July 3 document has not been made public in the cited reporting. X characterized the demand as a press-freedom concern and said it was considering legal options. That does not establish why each account was listed or whether the direction’s purpose was to target news organizations.
What happened to Reuters’ accounts
On the evening of July 5, users in India reportedly found Reuters’ two accounts unavailable, with a notice saying they had been “withheld in IN (India) in response to a legal demand.” The accounts were restored on July 6, according to reporting carried by bdnews24.
#1 Best Overall
This was described as a country-specific restriction, not a worldwide suspension or deletion of Reuters’ accounts. A country-specific withholding can prevent access from that country while an account remains available elsewhere. It is also distinct from removing individual posts or URLs. The reporting does not establish what happened to every account in X’s claimed list, or whether those accounts were restricted for the same length of time.
India’s response
MeitY denied issuing a fresh July 3 blocking order targeting Reuters or other prominent international news organizations. It said the government had no intention of blocking those outlets and contacted X as soon as it learned the Reuters accounts had been withheld, asking for them to be restored. The ministry’s response was reported by the Hindustan Times.
Rank #2
The accounts’ restoration is consistent with both sides’ accounts that the restriction ended quickly, but it does not settle the disagreement over what prompted it. X said the accounts appeared on the July 3 list and that the government later requested unblocking after public criticism. The government said it had not issued a fresh order and that it sought restoration immediately. The reports do not independently establish which description of the communication is correct.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Timeline of the dispute
- July 3, 2025: X says India directed it to block 2,355 accounts, including the two Reuters handles, under Section 69A.
- July 5: Reuters’ accounts are reportedly withheld for users in India. An Indian government spokesperson says there was no requirement from the government to withhold the account and that officials were working with X to resolve the issue; the statement was reproduced in a post on X.
- July 6: Reuters’ accounts are reportedly restored in India.
- July 8: X publicly describes the alleged July 3 order and says it is exploring legal options; MeitY denies issuing a fresh order targeting Reuters.
The episode followed reports of Indian requests to restrict accounts during or after the May 2025 India-Pakistan military confrontation known as Operation Sindoor. That context is separate from X’s claimed July 3 instruction. The available reports do not show that Reuters was restricted because of a particular story or editorial decision. The New Indian Express covered the dispute and this broader context.
What Section 69A allows
Section 69A of India’s Information Technology Act authorizes the central government, or an officer specially authorized by it, to direct an agency or intermediary to block public access to information hosted on a computer resource. The statutory grounds include protecting India’s sovereignty and integrity, defense and state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and preventing incitement to certain cognizable offences.
The law requires reasons for a blocking direction to be recorded in writing, while the procedure and safeguards are set out separately in rules. An intermediary that fails to comply can face imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine. The official text of the Information Technology Act sets out the provision; MeitY also maintains a Section 69A materials page.
Rank #4
Section 69A’s existence does not prove that a particular direction was issued, properly followed, or lawful. Nor does its text automatically authorize a blanket ban on an account: it refers to blocking access to information, and the scope and procedure of a specific direction matter. The public reports here do not establish whether the statutory requirements were met in the alleged July 3 case.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What remains unknown
- The document itself: The full alleged July 3 order or communication is not included in the cited public reporting.
- The scope of the list: The identities and categories of all 2,355 entries are not established. The reports also do not clarify whether the figure refers strictly to accounts or includes other identifiers or content.
- The reasons: Publicly available material does not explain why each entry was included or document the reasons for restricting it.
- How to characterize the instruction: The record cited here does not resolve whether the July 3 communication was a new blocking order, part of an earlier process, or an instruction X and MeitY interpreted differently.
- What followed legally: X said it was exploring a challenge, but the available reporting does not establish the outcome or ultimate legal status of that effort.
These gaps matter because the distinction between a government order, a platform’s interpretation of a demand, and a temporary country-level restriction is central to assigning responsibility. Without the underlying document and a fuller account of the 2,355 entries, readers cannot independently verify the order’s exact scope or rationale.
Best Value
Why the distinction matters
For readers, the immediate result was clearer than the cause: Reuters’ accounts were reportedly inaccessible in India for a short period and then returned. For news organizations and users, the broader questions are whether authorities can require platforms to restrict access, what reasons and procedural checks apply, and how users can scrutinize those decisions.
Platforms’ transparency reports can provide context on government requests, though they do not necessarily reveal the complete record for an individual direction. X publishes India-specific transparency materials. Such reporting can help track patterns, but it cannot substitute for the disputed order in this case.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
