The Indian government has directed X to block over 8,000 accounts within the country. This move, though touted to curb the spread of misinformation following 'Operation Sindoor', has also raised concerns about press freedom and the transparency of content moderation practices.
Among the accounts affected are independent media outlets such as Maktoob Media, The Kashmiriyat and Free Press Kashmir, as well as journalists Muzamil Jaleel, deputy editor at Indian Express and Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of Kashmir Times.
X has stated that, in many cases, the government did not specify which posts violated local laws, nor did it provide evidence justifying the blocks. The platform has expressed disagreement with the government's demands, viewing the blanket blocking of accounts as a form of censorship that infringes upon the fundamental right to free speech.
"This is not an easy decision, however keeping the platform accessible in India is vital to Indians' ability to access information," X said in a post on the platform.
Despite its objections, X has begun complying with the orders to avoid potential penalties, including significant fines and imprisonment of its local employees. The company is exploring legal avenues to challenge the orders and has encouraged affected users to seek appropriate relief through the courts.
"Blanket Censorship"
Maktoob Media editor Shaheen Abdullah told BOOM they learned about the account block only after people flagged it and that there was no prior communication from X or the government. “It happened just hours before X posted about the Indian government ordering blocks on 8,000 accounts,” he said. “We expected some retaliation, especially since the government was targeting posts reporting on events across the border—but this was still unexpected.”
The news outlet hasn’t appealed yet. “We’re taking legal advice and may go to court,” he said, adding that previous notices from X at least included procedures to challenge takedowns. “This time, there was nothing. We don’t know what triggered the block. None of our content was false, but accuracy seems to come at a cost,” the editor said.
He described the move as part of “irrational blanket censorship” which seems "completely unrelated to national security". Abdullah added that Maktoob Media has long faced visibility issues. “There’s always been a shadow ban. We cannot prove it but our page hardly shows up in search.”
"Unfortunately, we rely on social media to reach the masses—so this hits hard," he said.
Similarly, the editorial team of Free Press Kashmir got to know of the blocking after they were approached by journalists from other organisations in India who could not access the handle. Speaking to BOOM, Editor Qazi Zaid said, "We did not receive any notice or direct communication from X informing us of this action. The only message shared with us was the publicly visible notice displayed on our X handle, referencing a legal request."
Alluding to the lack of clarity of the situation, he said, "We are not aware of any individual post or story that violated the platform’s policies, or local laws. Our reportage is consistent with journalistic standards and public interest reporting."
Zaid explained that in the past, there had been many instances where content from Free Press Kashmir had been restricted or flagged on digital platforms. He said, "Our page on Facebook has been restricted and in one instance been deleted." He added that each time they tried to seek clarity, their efforts were met either with no response or with templated replies that "do not address the merits of the case".
The editor notes that there has been a shift in the responsiveness and accountability mechanisms on X and Facebook over the past few years. "The redressal mechanisms are opaque, and almost cannot be challenged," he said.
The media outlet has not initiated a formal appeal till now but is in touch with press freedom and digital rights organisations to seek support.
X's ongoing legal battles in India
The recent wave of account blocks comes amid two major legal disputes between X Corp and the Indian government over online content regulation. The Elon Musk-owned platform has challenged what it calls arbitrary and opaque censorship practices.
In the Karnataka High Court, X is contesting the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act to issue takedown orders without court approval or procedural safeguards. This IT Act provision states that platforms like X risk losing "safe harbour"—legal protection from user content—if they don’t remove posts flagged by authorised government bodies.
The company argues this violates the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment, which upheld structured content regulation only under Section 69A. The court declined to grant interim relief and has scheduled the next hearing for July 1.
Separately, in the Delhi High Court, X is refusing to join the government’s SAHYOG portal, a platform meant to streamline content takedown and data requests from law enforcement. X contends that the portal bypasses due process and creates a parallel system lacking legal oversight. While 38 other platforms, including Telegram, Google, and Meta, have reportedly onboarded, X maintains that its internal systems are sufficient and constitutionally compliant.
A history of clashes with Indian authorities
These cases add to X’s long-standing friction with Indian authorities over content regulation. In 2023, the Karnataka High Court had dismissed X's petition against multiple blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act and fined the company Rs 50 lakh for non-compliance. Similarly, during the 2021 farmer protests, X (then known as Twitter) initially resisted government requests to remove critical content but later complied after legal pressure.
More recently, the Ministry of Railways asked X to remove 285 posts related to the February 2024 stampede at New Delhi Railway Station that left 18 dead. The government cited ethical concerns and fears of public unrest. This marked one of the first instances where the ministry exercised newly delegated powers under Section 79(3)(b) to issue direct takedown orders.
Notably, under Musk’s ownership, X’s takedown compliance reportedly rose to 80%, up from around 50% previously—including blocks on journalists and opposition politicians, prompting concerns over free speech.
