While most of the 8,000 accounts per X-unique platform for publishing statistics on the range of blocking orders received after the Sindoor-Ba Pakistan operation, many Indian and non-Pacist handles were also limited. File | Photo Credit: Reuters
Even as a clutch of Indian accounts on X, formerly Twitter, it focused on questioning the censorship of their accounts in India since May 7, the Union government has unlocked access to many of them, as the predecessor of the court hearing. On May 17, after 10 days, it was “detained” at the government’s commands in India 17 May.
While most of the 8,000 accounts per X-unique platform for publishing statistics on the range of blocking orders received after the Sindoor-Ba Pakistan operation, many Indian and non-Pacist handles were also limited. The orders were sent under section 69a of the Information Technology Act of 2000.
Arpit Sharma, a content creator with 3.4 lakh followers on Instagram, had his account X. “Just before our case was to be listed (at the Supreme Court), my account was restored,” said Sharma 17 May.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technologies did not respond to the question concerning the blocking of accounts and Mr. Sharma stated that he had not received any communication from the government to detention his account. Anuradha Bhasin, a senior journalist in Kashmir, also had her account renewed as well as Outlet Free Press Kashmir.
4pm News, Outlet YouTube, was also restored, higher advocates and deputy Rajya Sabha Kapil Siber told the Supreme Court on 13 May. Mr. Sibal asked the court to continue to consider the petition to hold the 2009 blocking rules. The petition was subsequently marked with related matters.
There were other outlets whose censorship was resolved in a much shorter time frame: the BBC Urdu was on May 9. May detained, but was available again within three days; The Chinese State Intelligence Outlet Global Times and Türkiye’s TRT world were both detained and renewed in one day.
The Center for Software Software for Freedom Freedom in Delhi, India (SFLC), stated that while misinformation was concerned: “Extensive blocking of social media accounts without prior warnings nor the opportunity to attack the stop is neither effective.” The non -profit organization “submitted to the Supreme Court, which challenged the constitutionality of Rules 16 and read rules of 8 and 9 information technologies (procedures and warranty for blocking access to public information) of 2009, for violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” she said.
Published – May 27, 2025 20:43
