By IPA Webdesk
The official X handle of Reuters, one of the world鈥檚 foremost news agencies, has been withheld in India under a 鈥渓egal demand,鈥 with no clear explanation emerging from authorities or Reuters. The move appears to be geographically limited, affecting only users accessing the @Reuters and @ReutersWorld accounts from within India, while other international users retain access.
Users attempting to view the @Reuters feed encountered a message stating the account 鈥渉as been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.鈥 Within hours, access to the @ReutersWorld handle was also blocked, although several subsidiary Reuters accounts鈥擳ech News, Fact Check, Pictures, Asia, and China鈥攔emained accessible to Indian users. Indian government agencies and Reuters have not offered any public comment clarifying whether the action originated from a court directive, a government ministry, or law enforcement.
This development forms part of a wider pattern in India鈥檚 content regulation strategy involving platform-level restrictions. Since May, X has complied with a directive to block approximately 8,000 accounts in India鈥攕panning Pakistani media outlets, politicians, and several state-backed Chinese agencies鈥攄ue to national security and communal concerns. That round of takedowns included prominent media organisations such as Global Times and Xinhua on X.
X鈥檚 compliance has drawn criticism from digital rights activists and media freedom advocates, who argue that the platform has been compelled into censorship without transparent due process or opportunity for appeal. X鈥檚 public communications on previous orders emphasised that many blocked accounts were subject to content takedown demands without specific violations being verified. The company also voiced its disagreement with broad account-level restrictions, describing them as 鈥渃ensorship of existing and future content.鈥
Following the current withholding of Reuters handles, stakeholders are raising concerns over consistency and proportionality. Several media observers note that singling out the flagship Reuters accounts鈥攚hile allowing related feeds to remain鈥攃ould suggest a targeted restriction rather than a blanket enforcement of policy. Some analysts caution that this could produce a chilling effect on international media coverage accessible in India.
India鈥檚 Information Technology rules empower designated officials to issue content restriction requests, which platforms must follow until contested in court. X is reportedly contesting the broader legal framework in Karnataka鈥檚 High Court, arguing against a vaguely defined government portal that authorises content takedown orders by numerous officials. X鈥檚 legal challenges suggest the company contests the legitimacy of these directives, even as compliance continues.
Reuters itself has remained silent, issuing no official comment as of July 6, 2025. The agency鈥檚 London newsroom, which oversees the @Reuters account, did not respond to information requests, and no notice has been issued on its website. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology have not recorded any statements or legal notices relating to this event in publicly accessible portals.
Digital media specialists believe that prolonged withholding without transparent justification may escalate tensions between Indian authorities and international news platforms. Reuters, whose global feed is followed by millions, including journalists, investors, and diplomats in India, risks diminished reach in the country. The block may also fuel criticism that India is extending its regulatory grasp over global media narratives, raising concerns about interference in press operations.
Looking ahead, attention is focusing on whether Reuters will legally challenge the action or seek clarification from Indian authorities. X鈥檚 previous court filings suggest platforms may pursue judicial review to restrain overbroad censorship mechanisms. Meanwhile, news consumers in India may increasingly depend on alternative Reuters accounts that remain active, though concerns about fracturing the credibility and coherence of international news remain.