How would you feel if someone decided what you can or can’t watch, even before you get to see it yourself? It feels frustrating, right? Well, this is happening in India; the government appears to be trying to control social media platforms and shape the narrative around current events. On 5 July 2025, the Reuters account was banned in India without providing any legal notice or warning about the restriction and when users tried to reach the account, it showed “Reuters has been withheld in IN (India) in response to a legal demand.” They tried to reach the app using their second account named ReutersWorld, but it was also restricted. X claimed that they had banned it on a legal demand by the Indian IT industry and asked them to contact the secretary of India’s Information and Broadcasting Ministry. But he did not respond upon request seeking comments.
The Indian Express published a report through a spokesperson,
“There is no requirement by the Indian government to withhold the Reuters X account in India.”
The Reuters account restriction, along with hundreds of other accounts, was requested during Operation Sindoor, resources said. Reuters also claimed that they had received an email on May 16, 2025, which warned about account restrictions and requested the removal of content from their account. But the specific content was not mentioned in the email. Indian news reports claimed that X acted on a legal request made back in May, even though the Reuters account was not withheld at that time.
In the past few years, X has been in an ongoing tussle with India because of its censorship and content takedown requests. Earlier this year, X criticized the Indian government over a new system that Reuters says could expand censorship powers to many government officials. X claims that India aims to regulate social media content through its censorship portal, giving government officials the authority to execute orders using this website. Modi’s government claims that the new website was intended to notify tech companies, making sure users don’t post harmful or illegal content.
What happened with Reuters is not the latest event. While officials deny any direct involvement, there is a clear pattern of takedowns, blocked content, and withheld accounts that have continued across different platforms such as X and YouTube, often without any public explanation. Below are several recent examples that show how the Indian government is controlling online content, whether it’s taking down documentaries or removing posts from social media platforms.
| Event | What Was Blocked | Year | Reason |
| Farmers’ protest accounts (X/Twitter) | 250 accounts and tweets withheld briefly | 2021 | Blocked due to posts criticizing the government during mass farmer protests. |
| BBC “Modi Question” documentary | YouTube videos and 50+ tweets | 2023 | Banned under emergency laws for questioning PM Modi’s role in the 2002 riots. |
| “India’s Daughter” BBC documentary | Full documentary and YouTube uploads | 2015 | Blocked for allegedly portraying India in a negative light over a rape case. |
| IT Rules takedowns (e.g., protests) | Various social posts and accounts | 2024 | Content removed under new IT Rules, often citing national security or order. |
This isn’t only about Reuters; it’s about a pattern that’s been building up quietly. One account gets suspended, then another, and then a documentary disappears. It’s always framed as “legal demand,” “national security,” or “public order.” But what does that actually mean? Who decides what’s too sensitive for people to see? And why is the explanation always missing?
When governments start choosing what information people can access, without transparency without accountability, that’s not about security or legality. This is a matter of exerting control. Social media platforms may follow orders to stay out of trouble, but the real issue is that the public’s right to ask questions, to be informed, and to think critically has been lost in this process. When that disappears slowly, freedom doesn’t vanish overnight; it just fades quietly in the background, one takedown at a time.
