Row over Reuters accounts points to unreasonable restrictions on free speech

Indian Express

10-07-2025

On Saturday night, X (formerly Twitter) blocked the two official accounts of a global news wire service in India 'in response to a legal demand'. Soon after, a Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology spokesperson insisted that the government had made no such demand, it had reportedly asked for some posts of Reuters to be taken down on May 7 and 8, during Operation Sindoor. The accounts were restored shortly after. X, however, insists that it was acting on a notice from the Centre, and Reuters handles were among the over 2,000 that it was instructed to block. The quarrel over who was responsible — the Government of India or the social media platform — for blocking Reuters accounts flags larger issues, not least the ease and frequency with which takedowns are being ordered. They raise questions about unreasonable restrictions on free speech and whether many such orders violate Supreme Court judgments, including in the landmark Shreya Singhal case.
There are occasions when posts and even accounts may be legitimately taken down. False information and images that incite violence, particularly when they risk making a precarious situation, such as a communal riot, worse. There can be circumstances when national security is at stake that may require intervention by the government on what is posted online. Examples of misinformation and disinformation in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack underscore that in every conflict, now, the digital sphere is a front. Having said that, takedown orders must be the exception and not the rule. And they must conform to the letter and spirit of Article 19. Section 73(b) of the IT Act is particularly problematic — central and state governments of various political hues have issued takedown orders under this provision. Whether or not it constitutes a violation of the Shreya Singhal judgment — which struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional — is currently being heard by the Karnataka High Court. However, by any reckoning, blanket orders that seek to censor thousands of accounts at a time constitute state overreach.
Governments must realise that 'reasonable restrictions' on free speech must be infrequent, justifiable and narrowly defined. Blanket orders are blunt instruments — they will likely do little to curb bad actors, who have various means at their disposal, such as dummy accounts, bots, etc., while sending a chilling signal vis-à-vis a fundamental right in a constitutional democracy. Episodes such as the controversy over the Reuters handles dent the government's credibility. Going forward, it should not issue orders that are so broad, and target so many accounts that it invites distrust about its intentions on free speech.