Elon Musk’s X Claims Indian Government Ordered Blocking of Over 2,000 Accounts, Including Reuters, Under Section 69A of IT Act

Free Speech or National Security? X vs. Indian Government’s Messy Showdown Over Account Blocks So, here we go again with another huge tech vs. government drama, and this time it’s Elon Musk’s X (yeah, the artist formerly known as Twitter) clashing with the Indian government. Basically, X is saying, “Hey, these guys told us to block more than 2,000 accounts.” And get this, some of those are big-name players, like Reuters.

Like, really? Is Reuters also included on the list now? Wild. (Sounds like someone’s password, honestly.) The law lets the government demand blocks on whatever they think is a threat to national security, but, I mean, who decides what’s “threatening”? That’s a question of great importance. The internet is rapidly expanding. People are raising concerns about free speech, press rights, and the apprehension that your government has the power to arbitrarily silence anyone.

Alright, here’s the human remix: On July 8, 2025, the individuals responsible for X’s Global Government Affairs account made a significant announcement. They essentially denounced the Indian government for instructing them, on July 3, to block a staggering 2,355 accounts. And we’re not just talking random trolls or bots; they straight-up named big players like Reuters and Reuters World.

For More Updates & Regular Notes, Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group (https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators): contact@legalmaestros.com.

That’s some heavy stuff, like, hello, free press, anyone? What’s wilder? X said if they didn’t play along, they could catch literal criminal charges. No joke. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology apparently instructed them to complete the task immediately, within an hour.

The task simply vanished, akin to losing your last sock in the washing machine. Sure, a few accounts popped back up later; apparently folks made enough noise, and the government nudged X to let ’em back in, but honestly, the whole thing leaves a weird taste. If the government can effortlessly remove voices from online platforms, what might that suggest about who is genuinely directing the conversation in India? It raises questions, doesn’t it?

The Government’s Stance: Denial and Defense So, here’s what actually went down: Indian officials Indeed, MeitY’s representatives made a strong statement, categorically denying the imposition of any new blocking orders on July 3, 2025. That includes big names, like Reuters. Apparently, the second they noticed Reuters’ pages disappearing from X (you know, Twitter’s fancy new name), the government hit up X and told them, “Hey, fix this.” According to the government, X just dragged their feet, playing the technicality card and wasting time, even though officials kept bugging them to sort it out. Honestly, it sounds like a classic “not it, not my fault” situation on both sides. Man, the Indian government didn’t waste any time shutting down those rumors.

The officials at MeitY flat-out denied that they issued any new blocking orders on July 3, 2025, especially not against major international names like Reuters. Apparently, as soon as they noticed Reuters’ accounts being blocked by X, they immediately reached out to X and pushed for their restoration. Indeed, the government publicly chastised X for simply stalling and using technical jargon as a protective shield, while officials persistently urged them to take action. Classic bureaucratic hot potato. What a mess.

Now, let’s discuss the “procedure” aspect. Section 69A(2) is basically like, “We’ll tell you the steps later.” Those steps actually live in this 2009 rulebook with a super catchy name, right? “Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by the Public) Rules, 2009”—try saying it five times fast. Anyway, there’s usually a committee that checks out the content, then the platform (y’know, like Twitter or whatever they call themselves now), and whoever posted it gets a heads-up so they can defend themselves. However, everything is kept confidential, as it seems that secrecy is a crucial aspect of government operations.

But here’s the kicker: if it’s a full-blown emergency, they can skip all that and block first, asking questions later. And what if a platform decides to play rebel and ignore the order? Oh boy. Section 69A(3) says they can slap the company (or even a person at the company) with up to seven years in jail and a fat fine. This punishment is far more severe than a mere reprimand. So, yeah, most platforms aren’t about to risk that kind of heat, even if they think the order’s bogus.

In summary, the Government’s directive is to “block it.” Platforms typically do not contest the orders unless they are willing to face significant consequences.

Let’s be honest for a moment: if the government continues to block news organizations, it will significantly impact press freedom in India.

This situation is alarming. News outlets serve more than just providing weather updates; they are also responsible for monitoring the actions of influential individuals. Yank their accounts offline? Suddenly, people’s access to information decreases, and they begin to exercise caution before posting or sharing anything, as no one wants to face consequences.

This whole mess isn’t just about a couple of Twitter (sorry, X) accounts going dark. It’s a persistent global challenge: how can we effectively control truly harmful content without simply suppressing anyone who expresses something inconvenient? Sure, information spreads across the internet faster than you can say “viral,” but is giving governments a giant mute button a good idea? That’s dicey. Critics aren’t wrong when they say that kind of power is way too readily available to abuse; suddenly, “national security” could mean “don’t talk about that, ever.” Now, X is saying they’re “exploring all legal options”? This fight’s nowhere near finished.