Social media company X on Tuesday accused the Union government of ordering it to block 2,355 accounts, including of international news agency Reuters, prompting the ministry of electronics and IT to hit back with claims that no “fresh blocking orders” were issued and that X “unnecessarily exploited technicalities” to delay restoring the news agency’s accounts.
The exchange — in the form of statements, first by X’s Global Government Affairs account and then by a statement from the ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) -- represents a rare public flashpoint in an ongoing battle between the two over content regulation that is simultaneously playing out in the Karnataka high court.
“On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld,” X’s Global Government Affairs team said on Tuesday.
The company, owned by SpaceX and Tesla chief Elon Musk, claimed 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, warning that “non-compliance risked criminal liability.”
However, the government rejected X’s characterisation of events, issuing a detailed rebuttal that accused the platform of exploiting “technicalities” and unnecessarily delaying the restoration of Reuters accounts.
{{/usCountry}}However, the government rejected X’s characterisation of events, issuing a detailed rebuttal that accused the platform of exploiting “technicalities” and unnecessarily delaying the restoration of Reuters accounts.
{{/usCountry}}“The government has not issued any fresh blocking order on 3rd July, 2025 and has no intention to block any prominent international News Channels including Reuters and ReutersWorld,” an official spokesperson said in response to X’s statement.
But a senior IT ministry official aware of the matter, asking not to be named, said that a “general notice” was indeed issued to social media companies on July 3, following public backlash over the unblocking of Pakistani celebrity accounts on July 2.
“After we unblocked some Pakistan-linked accounts, there was an uproar. So, we decided to reblock them. In the list of over 3,900 URLs we sent on July 3, it’s possible one or two linked to Reuters were included. But at no point was there any directive to target Reuters specifically. The way X has framed it is mischievous,” the official said, without answering how a “general notice” differed from a “fresh order”.
A second government official shared a list of 18 accounts that the government sent to X on July 6 to unblock — this included the Reuters’ handles.
The government, in its statement, said that “the moment Reuters and ReutersWorld were blocked on X platform in India, immediately the government wrote to ‘X’ to unblock them,” adding that officials “continuously engaged and vigorously pursued with ‘X’ from the late night of 5th July 2025.”
“’X’ has un-necessarily exploited technicalities involved around the process and didn’t unblock the URLs” despite official requests, ultimately taking “more than 21 hours to unblock Reuters” after authorities conducted “lot of follow up on hourly basis,” the government said.
When news of the accounts being blocked first emerged over the weekend, the government initially said “there was no requirement” to block the handles of the agencies, setting off speculation about why the accounts were blocked and at whose instance.
The revelation about the July 3 general notice provides the government’s explanation for the blocking, though it appears to contradict the spokesperson’s assertion that no blocking order was issued that day.
X said it was “deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India due to these blocking orders” and indicated it was “exploring all legal options available,” though the company acknowledged being “restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges.”
The company urged “affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts”, a statement that came even as its lawyers argued their case against content takedown notices in a hearing on Tuesday before the Karnataka high court.
X has sued the Union government over what it calls an illegal “censorship portal” and the misuse of content blocking powers under a specific section. The company filed a writ petition in Karnataka High Court in March, challenging the government’s use of the Sahyog portal and Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act to issue takedown orders.
On Tuesday, X’s counsel senior advocate KG Raghavan contended that the Sahyog Portal leaves the definition of ‘unlawful’ content to the discretion of countless government officials authorised to take actions through it and that Section 79(3)(b) should not be treated as a standalone takedown power but must be read with safeguards built into Section 69A.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that Raghavan’s arguments reflected only “an X-centric perspective” and failed to consider the government’s broader responsibility toward intermediaries.
The platform has specifically objected to what its lawyers called orders from “every Tom, Dick, and Harry” government official, a characterisation that drew sharp criticism from the government’s legal representatives during court proceedings.