The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has issued a call for “transparency and due process” from the Indian government regarding its application of social media restrictions. This appeal comes after multiple international news organizations reported that their accounts on the social media platform X had been withheld in India in response to what was termed a “legal demand” (more details here) from July 5 to July 7.
The incident highlights ongoing tensions between the government and media organizations over freedom of press and speech. CPJ’s representative in India, Kunal Majumder, criticized the “serious lack of transparency and accountability” in how India enforces orders for content removal and account blockages on social media. He emphasized the need for these measures to meet clear legal standards and be subject to independent oversight, so they do not infringe on press freedoms.
The social media platform X announced that the Indian government had ordered the blocking of 2,355 accounts under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, threatening criminal liability for non-compliance. This act allows the government to direct entities to block public access to specific online content (read more).
Outlets such as Reuters and TRT World were reportedly affected. However, the Indian government denied issuing such an order, asserting that the blockages were an unintended consequence of enforcing “Operation Sindoor,” an initiative targeting misinformation originating from Pakistan (learn more).
X expressed deep concerns over ongoing press censorship in India and called on Indian users to seek legal redress through the courts. The platform has initiated legal action against the Indian government, challenging what it sees as the unjustified expansion of censorship capabilities (source).
This development follows a history of strained interactions between the Indian authorities and media outlets, tensions that have been exacerbated by heightened security challenges such as the killing of tourists in India-administered Kashmir, attributed to the terrorist group “The Resistance Front.” These incidents have been used to justify increasingly stringent social media controls, drawing criticism from freedom of press advocates and organizations (background).