The affected journalist says the move is linked to his work on India–Israel ties; critics question the secrecy surrounding the blocking powers and the impact on freedom of expression
NEW DELHI — The X account of senior Middle East Eye journalist Azad Essa has been blocked in India following an order issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000.
According to an email sent by X this week, formerly known as Twitter, access to the journalist’s account has been restricted within India on the instructions of the Narendra Modi-led government. The platform said it had received a legal order and was required under Indian law to act on it.
“We have received a legal order from the Government of India, under which we have had to block access to your account in India,” the email stated.
The company clarified that the content may remain available outside India. It declined to share further details, saying, “We cannot provide further details on this matter due to legal restrictions.” The journalist was advised to contact the relevant ministry or consider legal action.
Alarm Over Press Freedom
Azad Essa, who lives in the New York metropolitan area, said he was concerned about the decision and questioned the basis of the order.
He said his reporting has largely focused on India–Israel relations and related political developments.
“I can only assume that the ban is imposed in the context of this work. It is a sign of how journalism is being curtailed in India,” Essa said.
He added, “If the government doesn’t like a journalist’s reporting, it doesn’t mean that their voice should be silenced. The question is, where is the transparency?”
Essa has also written a book titled Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel, in which he examines the political and strategic relationship between the two countries.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has not issued a public statement on this specific case so far.
Understanding Section 69A
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 gives the government the power to order the blocking of public access to online content. The grounds listed in the law include sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order.
Orders under this section are generally confidential. In many cases, the detailed reasons for blocking are not made public. Affected individuals often do not receive full information about the grounds for the action.
Critics have said that the lack of transparency in the process makes it difficult for journalists and users to challenge such orders effectively. They argue that while national security is important, the process must also protect freedom of expression.
Government representatives in previous cases have maintained that such powers are necessary to safeguard national interest and maintain public order.
Questions Over Platform Responsibility
Essa also questioned the role of X in the matter.
“X calls itself a supporter of freedom of expression, but on such occasions, it restricts journalistic voices in compliance with government orders,” he said.
Technology platforms operating in India are required to follow local laws. Failure to comply with government orders can lead to legal and financial consequences for companies.
The incident has once again brought attention to the ongoing debate over online speech, state authority and the space available for journalists to report on sensitive issues.
For many observers, the key concern is how to balance national security considerations with the protection of free expression, especially when the affected voice belongs to a journalist reporting on matters of public interest.
