Govt says no legal requirement to block Reuters' X account in India, working to resolve issue
However, a spokesperson for the government told PTI that there is no legal requirement made by it Centre to withhold the account, and it is working with X to resolve the issue.
Reuters' X account is likely to be restored soon, the report added.
'There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold Reuters and we are continuously working with X to resolve the problem,' the spokesperson told PTI.
An email sent to Reuters seeking comments did not elicit a response, the report added.ank
The report cited other sources, who said that the demand for blocking of Reuters' X account was made during Operation Sindoor in May. It was also among several hundreds other accounts listed for being blocked from access in India, but this wasn't done then, it added.
The source added that Elon Musk-owned X seems to have now acted on that request and blocked Reuters' X handle in India. However, since the issue is not relevant at present, the government has asked X to explain the blocking and lift the embargo.
'An order was issued on May 7 (during Operation Sindoor) but it was not enforced. X seems to have enforced that order now which is a mistake on their part. Government has reached out to X for resolving it at the earliest,' an official source said. Affiliated X handles such as Reuters Tech News, Reuters Fact Check, Reuters Asia, and Reuters China are accessible in India.
However, both official X accounts of the global news agency as well as Reuters World handles are inaccessible.
X users attempting to access the main account can see a message that reads: 'Account withheld. @ Reuters has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.'
On its help centre page, X explains such messages 'about country withheld content' means X was compelled to withhold the entire account specified or posts in response to a valid legal demand, such as a court order or local laws.
(With inputs from PTI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed gangster Abu Salem to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on whether he is entitled to remission while serving a life sentence in two Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. Mumbai : Underworld don Abu Salem walks out of the Sessions Court after a hearing in Mumbai on Wednesday. PTI Photo by Mitesh Bhuvad (PTI1_18_2012_000148A) (PTI) {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} A division bench of Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil was hearing Salem's plea seeking early release on the grounds that he would complete 25 years of imprisonment by March 31, 2025. Salem argued that his release was mandated under the terms of his 2005 extradition from Portugal, in which the Indian government had given a solemn assurance to Portuguese authorities that he would not be sentenced to death or imprisoned for more than 25 years. {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} The confusion stems from the fact that Salem was arrested in one case on October 11, 2005, and in another on October 24, 2005. He was later convicted in both cases on February 25, 2015, and September 7, 2017, respectively. In July 2024, he had moved a special TADA court seeking a tentative date of release, but the court declined to consider remission, citing the grave nature of the offences. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} Read More {{^usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Salem's counsel, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, insisted that both sentences were running concurrently and, taking into account his pre-trial custody, time served, and jail-earned remission, Salem had effectively completed 25 years on March 31, 2025. 'They are not considering my jail-earned remission,' Malhotra told the court. Remission can be granted on various grounds, including good behaviour and completion of a portion of the sentence. However, the high court pointed out that the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling made no mention of remission. 'Do you want us to say something that the Supreme Court has not said?' the bench asked. 'This clarification needs to come from the Supreme Court,' it added. The bench admitted Salem's petition but declined interim relief, stating that it would be heard in due course. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Brics 2025: 'We don't want an emperor,' says Brazil's Lula; slams Trump tariffs, hints at dollar alternative
AP photo Brazilian President Lula da Silva took a sharp dig at Donald Trump as the Brics summit wrapped up on Monday: "The world has changed. We don't want an emperor". His words came just hours after the US President took to his familiar playbook of tariff threats, warning the bloc of extra duties if they took what he branded as "anti-American" positions. The warning? A 10 per cent tariff against Brics nations -- unless, of course, they looked for their interest rather than American interest! In his trade salvo on Sunday night, Trump said that this administration was preparing to finalise dozens of bilateral deals before a self-imposed July 9 deadline. But the developing powers weren't biting. "This is a set of countries that wants to find another way of organising the world from the economic perspective," Lula said, according to news agency Reuters, adding, "I think that's why the Brics are making people uncomfortable." According to a source familiar with the matter, the White House isn't planning to slap that 10 per cent tariff immediately. But if the bloc's policies appear "anti-American," the trigger could be pulled. At the Rio summit's close, Lula doubled down on his call for a diversified global economy. He took aim at the dollar's dominance in international trade, saying: 'The world needs to find a way that our trade relations don't have to pass through the dollar.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo 'Obviously, we have to be responsible about doing that carefully. Our central banks have to discuss it with central banks from other countries,' he clarified. 'That's something that happens gradually until it's consolidated.' In February, Trump had already warned of '100 per cent tariffs' on the Brics nations if they dared undermine the dollar's role. That same threat seems to have cooled the bloc's ambitions for a common currency, an idea floated last year but quietly parked under Brazil's current presidency. Other Brics members offered a more diplomatic response to Trump's outburst. South African president Cyril Ramaphosa said the bloc 'does not seek to compete with any other power,' and voiced optimism about reaching a trade understanding with the US. Over in Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning was characteristically measured: 'Tariffs should not be used as a tool for coercion and pressuring,' she said, noting that the Brics favours 'win-win cooperation' and 'does not target any country.' The Kremlin, for its part, reminded reporters that its work within the Brics reflects a "common world view" that "will never be directed against third countries". Without naming the US, the Brics group in Rio, including India, raised "serious concerns" about the rise of tariffs which it said were 'inconsistent with WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules.' The restrictions 'threaten to reduce global trade, disrupt global supply chains, and introduce uncertainty," the group said in a statement even as there was confusion even in Washington about the efficacy of the Trump approach.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Did China provide ‘external support' to Pakistan during conflict with India? Asim Munir says …
Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir on Monday rejected India's claims that Islamabad received external military support—particularly from China—during the four-day border clashes in May, calling the allegation 'factually incorrect' and 'irresponsible'. Asim Munir remarks came just days after Indian Army Deputy Chief Lt Gen Rahul R Singh, speaking at a seminar in New Delhi, alleged that Beijing had supported Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, using the conflict as a 'live lab' to test weapons. Rahul Singh also claimed that Turkiye had supplied military hardware to Islamabad, and that India was, in effect, dealing with at least three adversaries during the May 7–10 confrontation. 'Insinuations regarding external support in Pakistan's successful Operation Bunyanum Marsoos are irresponsible and factually incorrect and reflect a chronic reluctance to acknowledge indigenous capability and institutional resilience developed over decades of strategic prudence,' PTI quoted Asim Munir said in his address to graduating officers at the National Defence University in Islamabad. 'Naming other states as participants in the purely bilateral military conflagration is also a shoddy attempt at playing camp politics...,' the Pakistan Army Chief added. Asim Munir asserted that any attempt to compromise Pakistan's sovereignty would be met with a firm, immediate response, free from any constraints. 'Any misadventure or attempt to undermine Pakistan's sovereignty will be met with a swift, and resolute response without any constraints or inhibitions,' he stated. 'Any attempt to target our population centres, military bases, economic hubs and ports will instantly invoke a deeply hurting and more than reciprocal response." Rejecting India's narrative, Asim Munir said Pakistan's defence capability was entirely home-grown and the result of decades of strategic development, not foreign assistance. He contrasted what he described as India's 'parochial self-alignment' with Pakistan's principled diplomacy and regional partnerships rooted in mutual respect and peace. 'In contrast to India's strategic behaviour resting on parochial self-alignment, Pakistan has forged lasting partnerships based on principled diplomacy, anchored in mutual respect and peace,' Munir said. Asim Munir further argued that military victories are shaped by discipline and national will, not political posturing. 'Wars are not won through media rhetoric, imported fancy hardware, or political sloganeering, but through faith, professional competence, operational clarity, institutional strength and national resolve,' he remarked. The May 2025 conflict erupted after India launched Operation Sindoor on 7 May in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, targeting terror camps in Pakistan-controlled territory. The ensuing military confrontation lasted four days, ending on 10 May. India claims its decisive counterstrike on the final day forced Pakistan to seek an end to hostilities. Pakistan, however, maintains that its own military operation—Bunyanum Marsoos—was entirely indigenous and effective, with no role played by external powers.
