Latest news with #2000InformationTechnologyAct
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Reuters X account restored in India after suspension over legal demand
HighlightsThe Reuters News account on the social media platform X was restored in India on Sunday after being suspended due to a legal demand, with the platform indicating compliance with local laws. The Indian government's Press Information Bureau clarified that no agency had requested the withholding of the Reuters account and that officials were collaborating with X to resolve the issue. The 2000 Information Technology Act allows government officials to demand the removal of content deemed to violate local laws, which has led to ongoing tensions between X and the Indian government over content removal requests. The Reuters News account on X was restored in India on Sunday, a day after the social media platform suspended it, citing a legal demand. "At this time, we are no longer withholding access in INDIA to your account," X said in an email to the Reuters social media team, without elaborating. Representatives for X, Reuters and the Indian government did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the restoration of the account. Earlier on Sunday, a spokesperson for the Indian government's Press Information Bureau told Reuters that no Indian government agency had required withholding the Reuters handle, adding that officials were working with X to resolve the problem. A Reuters spokesperson had said the agency was working with X to resolve this matter and get the Reuters account reinstated in India as soon as possible. Reuters World, another X account operated by the news agency which was blocked in India, was also restored late Sunday night. The main Reuters account, which has more than 25 million followers globally, had been blocked in India since Saturday night. A notice told X users that "@Reuters has been withheld in IN (India) in response to a legal demand". In an email to the Reuters social media team on May 16, X said: "It is our policy to notify account holders if we receive a legal request from an authorized entity (such as law enforcement or a government agency) to remove content from their account." "In order to comply with X obligations under India's local laws, we have withheld your X account in India under the country's Information Technology Act, 2000; the content remains available elsewhere". Reuters could not ascertain if the May 16 email was linked to Saturday's account suspension nor could it determine what specific content the demand referred to, why its removal was sought or the entity that had lodged the complaint. While the email did not specify which entity had made the request or what content they sought to remove, it said X had been advised that in such cases, a user could contact the secretary of India's Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The secretary, Sanjay Jaju, did not respond to requests seeking comment. The 2000 law allows designated government officials to demand the takedown of content from social media platforms they deem to violate local laws, including on the grounds of national security or if a post threatens public order. X has long been at odds with India's government over content-removal requests. In March, the company sued the federal government over a new government website the company says expands takedown powers to "countless" government officials. The case is continuing. India has said X wrongly labelled an official website a "censorship portal", as the website only allows tech companies to be notified about harmful online content.
Scroll.in
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Centre has withdrawn order to block our YouTube channel: ‘4PM News' tells SC
Digital news outlet 4PM News on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the Union government has withdrawn an order blocking its YouTube channel, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AS Masih was hearing a petition filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor-in-chief of 4PM News, against the order issued on the grounds of 'national security'. Advocate Kapil Sibal, for 4PM News, told the court that the blocking order had been withdrawn. On April 29, the YouTube channel of 4PM News was blocked by the Union government. YouTube said that the channel was 'unavailable in [India] because of an order from the government related to national security or public order'. The channel has about 7.3 million subscribers. Sharma claimed that the ban was an attempt to ' crush a strong voice of democracy in the name of national security'. The channel had uploaded several videos criticising the Narendra Modi-led Union government after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, which left 26 dead, Newslaundry reported. On May 5, the court asked the Union government to respond to Sharma's petition. On Tuesday, Sibal urged the bench to keep the plea pending because the petitioner had also challenged the constitutionality of the rules permitting such blocking under the Information Technology Act, Bar and Bench reported. The bench agreed to the request and tagged the petition with another pending matter challenging the rules. In his petition before the court, Sharma said that the channel was blocked following an undisclosed direction issued by the Union government on the grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'. The journalist added that he had not received a formal order on the blocking of the channel. The petition noted that reasoned orders and a reasonable opportunity to be heard should be given before any blocking under Section 69A of the 2000 Information Technology Act. This section allows the state to issue directions for the blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource. 'It settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard,' the petition said. ''National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny. They are constitutionally recognised grounds under Article 19(2), but are subject to the test of reasonableness and proportionality.' Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. 'A vague reference to these grounds, without even disclosing the offending content, makes it impossible for the petitioner to challenge or remedy the allegation, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to free speech and fair hearing,' Sharma added. The petition called the action taken by the Union government a 'chilling assault on journalistic independence' and sought the quashing of the order blocking the YouTube channel.
Scroll.in
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC issues notice to Centre on plea by ‘4PM News' challenging blocking of its YouTube channel
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union government on a petition challenging the blocking of the digital news outlet 4PM's YouTube channel on the grounds of 'national security', Bar and Bench reported. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan sought replies on the petition filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor-in-chief of 4PM News, and listed the matter for next week, Live Law reported. On April 29, the YouTube channel of 4PM News was blocked by the Union government. YouTube said that the channel was 'unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order'. The channel had about 7.3 million subscribers. Sharma claimed that the ban was an attempt to ' crush a strong voice of democracy in the name of national security'. The channel had uploaded several videos criticising the Narendra Modi-led Union government after the Pahalgam terror attack, Newslaundry reported. In his petition before the court, Sharma said that the channel was blocked following an undisclosed direction issued by the Union government on the grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'. The journalist added that he had not received any formal order on the blocking of the channel. The petition noted that reasoned orders and a reasonable opportunity to be heard should be given before any blocking under Section 69A of the 2000 Information Technology Act. 'It settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard,' Bar and Bench quoted the petition as saying. ''National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny. They are constitutionally recognised grounds under Article 19(2), but are subject to the test of reasonableness and proportionality.' Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. 'A vague reference to these grounds, without even disclosing the offending content, makes it impossible for the petitioner to challenge or remedy the allegation, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to free speech and fair hearing,' Sharma added. The petition called the action taken by the Union government a 'chilling assault on journalistic independence' and sought the quashing of the order blocking the YouTube channel. At the hearing in court on Monday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Sharma, said that the Union government did not issue a notice to him prior to the blocking of the channel, Live Law reported. 'This is ex-facie unconstitutional,' Live Law quoted Sibal as saying. 'I don't even have the blocking order. I don't know what is against me.' The bench will hear the case further next week. On Thursday, the Editors Guild of India expressed concern about the Union government ordering the blocking of 4 PM's YouTube channel and demanded a 'transparent and accountable mechanism' for the takedown of journalistic content. The press association said that it was 'deeply concerned' by the Union government's directive to block access to 4PM News' YouTube channel on grounds of national security or public order 'without any disclosure of the specific reasons or evidence, and without following principles of natural justice'.
