The takedown of Thakurta websites has sparked concerns over the growing power of private technology companies to erase years of journalistic work without prior notice, raising questions about due process, corporate accountability and the protection of free speech. Journalists have reasons to be outraged.
BY Navin Upadhyay
New Delhi, October 31, 2026: The entire 12-year-old digital archive of veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta was taken offline by web-hosting company Hostinger on October 28, days after a Delhi court passed an interim order concerning a single article linked to Indiabulls founder Sameer Gehlaut. The sudden suspension has triggered protests from journalists and press freedom advocates, who have described the action as arbitrary and a threat to independent journalism.
Hostinger suspended Thakurta’s entire hosting account, including several subdomains, citing a “Fraud/Scam” abuse report. The suspension removed not just the specific article at the centre of the legal dispute but also years of reporting, investigations, documents and other material unrelated to the case.
Thakurta said the hosting company did not refer to the court order when it suspended the account and gave no prior notice. According to his account, a colleague was told by Hostinger support that the action followed a fraud/scam complaint and that “unsuspension is not negotiable”.
The dispute originated in a September 30, 2019 article titled The Maze of Political Links of Indiabulls’ Sameer Gehlaut, published on NewsClick and associated with Thakurta. Indiabulls Housing Finance filed a criminal defamation complaint in March 2020 against personnel associated with the publication and Thakurta. Summons were issued to the remaining accused in June-July 2025 under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Proceedings against NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha were dropped.
The controversy intensified in August this year when Gehlaut’s counsel sent Thakurta a legal notice demanding the removal of the article within 24 to 48 hours. Thakurta’s counsel responded the following month.
On October 24, Indiabulls Nests Ltd. and Gehlaut obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction from the Patiala House Courts in Civil Suit No. 529/2026. Thakurta is listed as Defendant No. 19. The order concerns the removal or de-indexing of a specific article hosted on paranjoy.in.
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA
On the arbitrary takedown of https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe by Hostinger following legal notices from Indiabulls founder Sameer Gehlaut
October 31, 2026
On the morning of October 28, 2026, my website https://t.co/OeAAoTPXCy and all its associated subdomains, including https://t.co/I8kylhDXVk and https://t.co/D8b6LtNzWD, were abruptly taken offline by our web hosting provider, Hostinger (HOSTINGER operations, UAB). The website, registered twelve years ago, serves as an online archive of my work over several decades as a journalist, author, publisher, and maker of documentary films and music videos
Hostinger gave no prior intimation, warning, or opportunity to respond before suspending the entire hosting account. When my colleague contacted Hostinger “Support” at 6:48 AM on October 28, a hosting “specialist” stated that the suspension was triggered by an abuse report for “Fraud/Scam” and declared that “unsuspension is not negotiable in this case.”
This sudden shutdown of an entire repository under the label “Fraud/Scam” happened just days after Sameer Gehlaut, founder of the Indiabulls group, served me with an ex parte court order demanding the removal of a single article published more than seven years on https://t.co/25noyNupwJ.
For over six years, Indiabulls and Shri Gehlaut have pursued legal action over this report and I have consistently defended our journalistic report in court. Here is the timeline:
· March 11, 2020: Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited filed a criminal defamation complaint (CC No. 1765/2020) before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, against NewsClick, its Reader’s Editor Urmilesh, co-author of the article Sourodipto Sanyal, NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha, and me over an article published on the website on September 30, 2019.
· June 6, 2025 and July 9, 2025: More than five years after the complaint was filed, a Judicial Magistrate at Patiala House Courts passed an order on June 6, 2025, dropping proceedings against Shri Purkayastha while issuing summons to the remaining four accused, including me, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A formal summons was issued on July 9, 2025, for appearance on July 30, 2025.
· August 27, 2026: Counsel for Shri Gehlaut, sent me a legal notice demanding the takedown of the article within 24 to 48 hours, claiming that a status report by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police had altered the factual position.
· September 2, 2026: My counsel sent a reply pointing out concerns with the legal notice
· October 24, 2026: Indiabulls Nests Limited (Plaintiff No. 1) and Sameer Gehlaut (Plaintiff No. 2) obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction from the Court of one of the District and Sessions Judges, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Civil Suit No. 529/2026 (Indiabulls Nests Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.), in which I am arrayed as Defendant No. 19. The order directed the removal and de-indexing of the article on https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe (listed as Item A-33 in Schedule A).
· October 25, 2026 (10:13 AM IST): Advocates representing Indiabulls Nests Limited and Sameer Gehlaut, emailed me the October 24 court order and suit documents, demanding immediate deletion and written confirmation of compliance.
· October 26, 2026 (11:33 PM IST): Sameer Gehlaut personally sent an email from his official address (sameer@indiabulls.com) demanding the immediate deletion of the URL from https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe and threatening to move the court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure if I did not comply, noting that the matter is next listed on December 18, 2026. While I was in the process of challenging the order dated 24.10.2026 before higher forums, on the same day, advocates representing Shri Gehlaut submitted a court order takedown complaint to Google LLC.· October 28, 2026 (3:16 PM IST): Google Search Console sent an automated notice ([WNC-598900]) informing me that Google was blocking the specific URL https://t.co/SsSVUVLKGX from appearing in search results on https://t.co/2IOZ4I1WqC.
The Lumen Database record of this complaint (Notice ID: 101001876) reveals the scale of the takedown request. The complaint targeted 52 URLs on websites across major national and international news organisations, including The Economic Times, Business Standard, The Caravan, The Daily Pioneer, Business Today, Deccan Herald, ET Now, Financial Express, Livemint, Moneycontrol, Moneylife, NDTV Profit, The New Indian Express, Outlook Business, The Quint, Quartz, and NewsClick, along with posts on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Scribd.
Most of these reports on major corporate news websites remain accessible online. In fact, Item 39 on the Lumen takedown list is the original September 30, 2019 article published on https://t.co/qQP2N2fxA2: https://t.co/hgneAPvDuF, which remains live and accessible as of now.
Yet, in the case of https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe, the entire domain and every website hosted on my account were wiped off the internet.
Hostinger’s Baseless “Fraud/Scam” Claim and Demand for Accountability
Hostinger did not cite the Patiala House Courts order when it suspended my account on October 28, 2026. Instead, its representative claimed that the hosting account was permanently suspended due to an abuse report for “Fraud/Scam”.
This allegation is demonstrably false:
1. VirusTotal Security Analysis: Independent domain checks conducted on October 28, 2026, at 7:48 AM and 7:54 AM on VirusTotal confirm that 0 out of 92 security vendors flagged https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe or https://t.co/I8kylhDXVk as malicious, phishing, or fraudulent. VirusTotal explicitly categorises https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe under “news and media”.
2. Google Safe Browsing Status: Checks on the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic tool at 7:55 AM and 7:56 AM on October 28, 2026, for both https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe and https://t.co/D8b6LtNzWD returned the status: “No unsafe content found”.
My website https://t.co/OeAAoTPXCy does not sell financial products, solicit funds for commercial schemes, or engage in any activity that could remotely be classified as a scam. It is a repository of public-interest journalism, books, documentary films, and investigative reports built over a lifetime of work. By acting on a fabricated “Fraud/Scam” abuse report without a single verification check or prior notice to the domain owner, Hostinger has allowed its abuse-reporting mechanism to be weaponised to censor an independent journalist.
Even where a court order directs the removal or de-indexing of a specific URL, a web hosting provider has no legal or ethical justification to pull down an entire domain and hundreds of unrelated articles, archives, and subdomains without notice.
I demand immediate answers and accountability from Hostinger:
1. Who submitted the false “Fraud/Scam” abuse report against https://t.co/TMPhYqaVhe, and on what exact date and time was it received?
2. What internal verification did Hostinger’s abuse team conduct before classifying a 12-year-old journalism portal as a “Fraud/Scam” site, especially when 92 security vendors on VirusTotal and Google Safe Browsing show zero malicious or unsafe content?
3. Why was no prior notice, warning, or copy of the complaint sent to me before suspending the entire hosting account?
4. On what basis did Hostinger’s specialist declare that the suspension of an entire archive of journalistic work is “not negotiable”?
While my legal advisers are in the process of taking appropriate steps in court regarding the ex parte order dated October 24, 2026, and the wholesale suspension of my website, this backdoor censorship through web hosting providers sets a dangerous precedent for the independence of the media and freedom of expression as enshrined in Article (19)(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as a fundamental right of every citizen of India.
Yours sincerelyParanjoy Guha Thakurta
Independent Journalist, Author, Publisher and Maker of Documentary Films and Music Videos— Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (@paranjoygt) October 30, 2026
Following the order, demands for removal were emailed to the journalist. Gehlaut also reportedly sent him a personal email seeking deletion of the article and warning of further legal action. A complaint was filed with Google targeting 52 URLs across multiple news platforms. Google subsequently blocked the specific paranjoy.in link from Indian search results, although several other links, including the original NewsClick article, reportedly remained accessible.
But on the morning of October 28, Hostinger suspended the entire hosting account, taking down paranjoy.in as well as subdomains including media.paranjoy.in and adanifiles.paranjoy.in.
Thakurta has challenged the justification for treating his website as a fraud or scam operation. He said checks conducted through VirusTotal showed that none of its 92 security vendors had flagged the domains as malicious. Google Safe Browsing also reportedly found no unsafe content. The domains were categorised as news and media websites.
He has argued that an order concerning one article cannot justify disabling an entire website and erasing access to an independent journalist’s archive built over 12 years. He has demanded that Hostinger disclose who filed the abuse complaint, what verification was carried out, why no notice was issued and on what basis the company declared that reinstatement was not negotiable.
The suspension has drawn sharp criticism from journalists and public figures, who see it as a disproportionate action with implications extending beyond the individual dispute.
READ: Days After Pasighat Violence, Five Minors Still in Police Custody
Senior journalist Ravish Kumar expressed dismay over the disappearance of the archive, saying that an entire journalist’s body of work had been erased. In a post on X, he described the development as deeply disturbing and warned that freedom of expression and press freedom were being undermined at multiple levels.
Journalist Abhisar Sharma also condemned the action as unfair and illegal. Drawing a parallel with court orders obtained by influential individuals to remove content, he questioned how a dispute over particular posts or reports could lead to the deletion of an entire website. He expressed solidarity with Thakurta.
AISA President Neha Bora called the development a dangerous precedent. She argued that a court order concerning one article could not become a justification for wiping out a 12-year archive and said the action should be challenged. AISA also condemned the suspension and expressed solidarity with the journalist.
The central issue now extends beyond the legal dispute over the 2019 article. It concerns the power of private digital intermediaries to disable entire websites in response to complaints or legal demands, potentially removing material that is not covered by the original dispute.
Thakurta maintains that the targeted court order did not require the suspension of his entire hosting account. He is pursuing legal remedies against both the injunction and Hostinger’s action.
The episode has raised fresh questions about the safeguards available to independent journalists whose work is hosted on private platforms. While courts can order the removal or restriction of specific content in accordance with law, the wholesale suspension of an archive containing years of unrelated journalistic work raises questions of proportionality, due process and the protection of free expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
For now, a journalist’s 12-year digital record remains inaccessible, while the legal battle over a single article has widened into a larger confrontation over online censorship, corporate accountability and press freedom.
