Archive · 31 Aug 2026
X’s Transparency Pledge Collides With India’s Secrecy Rules
X says it wants users to know when a government asks for a post or account to be blocked.
It says it may reveal which agency made the request and the legal reason.
Indian officials say X must obey Indian laws.
Those laws require many blocking orders to remain secret.
This creates a conflict between X’s transparency promise and India’s confidentiality rules.
X’s current feature does not yet show users the government request behind a block.
Many requests now come through a government portal called Sahyog, not only through the older blocking process.
X has often complained about government demands but has still complied with most of them.
Courts have not yet resolved whether X can publicly disclose these requests.
Elon Musk said X would disclose government censorship requests, including the agency involved and legal grounds where possible.
India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said X must follow Indian laws and that Section 69A orders are confidential.
Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Blocking) Rules, 2009 requires confidentiality over blocking requests and actions.
X’s current “Under the Hood” feature shows selected account labels, but not the government order behind an India-specific block.
India’s takedown demands also increasingly use Section 79(3)(b) and the Sahyog portal, while X continues complying with most government requests.
- Who
- X, led by Elon Musk, and India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology are at the center of the dispute.
- What
- X’s pledge to disclose government censorship requests conflicts with Indian rules requiring blocking orders to remain confidential.
- When
- The policy shift was announced on August 15; an Indian official responded on August 18. The article also cites developments from July 2025 and July 2026.
- Where
- India, including proceedings involving the Karnataka High Court, Bombay petitions, and the Supreme Court.
- Why
- Indian authorities say confidentiality is required by law, while X says government censorship should be visible to users.
X’s Transparency Position
Indian Authorities’ Legal Position
Disclosure of blocking orders
X’s Transparency Position
X says users should be told when a government sought content removal, including the agency and legal grounds where possible.
Indian Authorities’ Legal Position
India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says Section 69A orders are intended to remain confidential under Rule 16.
Applicability of Indian procedures
X’s Transparency Position
X has challenged the Sahyog portal and describes it as a censorship portal, while presenting itself as a free-speech advocate.
Indian Authorities’ Legal Position
The Karnataka High Court called Sahyog an instrument of public good, and Indian officials say X must comply with Indian laws.
Compliance with government demands
X’s Transparency Position
X has objected publicly to some blocking requests, including the blocking of Reuters, and restored Reuters after public criticism.
Indian Authorities’ Legal Position
Indian authorities’ demands continue to be enforced, and the article says X complies with between 83 and 99 percent of requests.
- X policy announcement
- On August 15, Elon Musk said government-required censorship would be clearly visible.
- Indian legal framework
- Section 69A and Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Blocking) Rules, 2009 govern the confidentiality of blocking orders.
- Potential penalty
- Section 69A provides for criminal liability, including imprisonment of up to seven years, for failure to comply.
- Alternative takedown route
- Since a 2023 Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology memorandum, many requests have been issued under Section 79(3)(b) through the Sahyog portal.
- Section 69A requests
- The article says such orders rose from roughly 6,000 annually through 2023 to about 24,300 in 2025.
- Current X feature
- The pilot “Under the Hood” feature shows selected users labels such as spam flags and reach restrictions, not the government request behind a block.
- Court status
- The Karnataka High Court dismissed X’s Sahyog challenge in September 2025; the Supreme Court stayed four related proceedings in July 2026.