Hostinger briefly takes down Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s personal website over an old NewsClick article

Access a copy of the Lumen Database PDF listing the disputed URLs: [pdf]

Hostinger, a global web hosting and domain registration provider, briefly suspended journalist and documentary filmmaker, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s website (http://www.paranjoy.in/) and the domains linked to it on October 28, and later restored them on November 2, according to the Guha’s posts on X.

The now-restored websites documents and archives 12 years of his work in journalism, books, documentary films and music videos. These were the affected domain and subdomains (now accessible):

https://www.paranjoy.in/
https://media.paranjoy.in/
https://adanifiles.paranjoy.in/

“Backdoor censorship through web hosting providers sets a dangerous precedent for the independence of the media and freedom of expression,” read Guha’s public statement. He also said that his legal team is preparing to challenge the October 24 order and the suspension of his website. The restoration happened after his post went viral and drew public criticism.

The website is now accessible.

What is the rationale behind the Hostinger takedown: The suspension reportedly came four days after a Delhi court passed an ex parte order, which is generally passed without hearing the other side, against a single NewsClick.in article on his website. However, Hostinger did not cite that order, according to Guha Thakurta. He said the company gave an abuse report for “Fraud/Scam” as the reason.

When Guha’s colleague contacted Hostinger support at 6:48 AM on October 28, a hosting specialist said the suspension followed that abuse report and that “unsuspension is not negotiable in this case”, Guha Thakurta said. He said Hostinger gave no prior notice or chance to respond.

Guha Thakurta disputed the ‘fraud’ label: Guha Thakurta said checks on October 28 contradict the abuse report. VirusTotal showed zero of 92 security vendors flagging paranjoy.in or media.paranjoy.in as malicious or fraudulent, he said, and categorised it under “news and media”. Google Safe Browsing returned “No unsafe content found” for paranjoy.in and adanifiles.paranjoy.in.

He argued that even where a court directs removal of one URL, a host has no justification to suspend an entire domain without notice. He has asked Hostinger four questions:

Who filed the abuse report, and when was it received?
What verification did the abuse team conduct before classifying the site as “Fraud/Scam”?
Why was no notice or copy of the complaint sent before suspension?
On what basis did the specialist call the suspension “not negotiable”?

A brief list of sequences in Guha’s case is just before the end of this article.

What we dont know: The text of the October 24 order has not been made public, so it is unclear whether it covers hosting providers. It is also unclear who filed the abuse report with Hostinger, whether Hostinger acted on it or the court order, and whether the site has been restored. We have emailed Hostinger seeking clarification in this, we will update the article if we hear back.

52 URLs on the takedown list: The complaint to Google, recorded in the Lumen Database (Notice ID 101001876), targeted 52 URLs, Guha Thakurta said. These included reports from the Caravan Magazine, The Economic Times, Business Standard, The Caravan, Mint, NDTV Profit and The Quint, as well as posts on X, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Scribd. A full list of the URLs extracted from the Lumen database is at the end of this article.

Most of these remain accessible, he said. Item 39 on the list is the original NewsClick article, which he said was still live at the time of his statement. The NewsClick article remains accessible even at the time of writing this article.

Moreover, Journalist Sucheta Dalal said that MoneyWise publication were also served with “same order.” Thanking Internet Freedom Foundation, she noted that when they challenged the order, the court ruled that “the defamation suit will no longer proceed against Moneywise Media LLP.” Read more about this case here.

A few public reactions to takedown of Guha’s website:

One disputed news article can’t justify the takedown of a 12-year-old body of work: “What a dangerous precedent! A court order concerning a specific article cannot become a pretext for wiping out an entire 12-year archive built by Paranjoy. This shouldn’t go unchallenged! In solidarity,” wrote Neha Bora on X.

Legal notices are being used to make work vanish: Journalist Ravish Kumar said “post deletion has reached a whole new level” and that “the entire website has been made to disappear”, in a post translated into English. He said the internet had fallen into the clutches of a “law mafia” that uses notices to erase people’s work. “Freedom of expression, freedom of the press is being extinguished at every level,” he said.

Taking down a host domain without notice is “a new low”: YouTuber and political commentator Akash Banerjee said assaults, court cases and account takedowns against journalists have become routine. He asked how “12 years of work” could be “wiped out because some moneybags filed a case”.

Users should move away from Hostinger: Fact-checker Pratik Sinha called for a boycott of Hostinger and urged its users to switch. He named 1984, Gandi and Njalla as more censorship-resistant providers and offered to help people migrate.

Erasing decades of work “is a crime”: Journalist Ajit Anjum said wiping out a senior journalist’s work “in one stroke” is no small matter. He alleged a “planned conspiracy” to suppress voices that expose those in power and the businesses they nurture.

From John Doe orders to deleting a whole website: Journalist Abhisar Sharma called the takedown “unfair and illegal”. He pointed to John Doe orders, which name unidentified defendants and which influential businessmen use to remove content against them, and asked how it had come to removing an entire website.

Takedown tactics are spreading from platforms to publishing: Journalist Pankaj Pachauri, a former communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, said “takedown tactics” are moving from social media platforms to online publishing. He said most domain providers have no India office or address for legal redress, and that courts need to be sensitised to this.

More responses are here.

Keep backups, and avoid .in domains: Responding to the same, MediaNama founder and editor Nikhil Pahwa shared advice for people running websites and social media accounts:

Export social media history regularly and keep offline copies, so an archive can be hosted on your own site if an account is blocked.
Avoid .in domains, citing changing policies at the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), and avoid Indian registrars and very popular ones. Register backup domains for your keyword.
Keep a backup server with another host and back up deployments, so the site can go live again.

NIXI’s suspension of ChaloSansad.in domain: During the Jantar Matar Protests in July 2026 seeking the resignation of ex-Union Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, NIXI, India’s .IN domain registry, suspended the website, chalosansad.in citing the invalid WHOIS contact details. When Viswanathan, the owner of chalosansad.in, submitted his redacted Aadhaar identity details, NIXI then reasoned that the word “Sansad” is exclusive to the government under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.This case is being heard in the Delhi HC now, with the next hearing scheduled for January 27, 2027.

In July 2025, NIXI mandated the Know Your Customer (KYC) verification of the users, which can be completed using MeitY’s DigiLocker app. If any foreign nationals have .in domain, they’ll have to complete their KYC verification through submitting ‘their passport, driving license, a letter issued by the Foreign Embassy or Mission of India, and income tax returns for the last two years,’ MediaNama reported when this change was announced.

“I don’t think NIXI is fit as a registrar for the .in domain. They’re seeking to enforce KYC via India’s digilocker for domain registration, and disallowing the registration/renewal of .in domain names to foreign citizens. This is a regressive move, not the first from NIXi, and goes against the spirit of the way the internet is structured: anyone can create a website on the internet and register a domain with any registrar. This move transforms NIXI from being an enabler to a bottleneck. Classic redtape-ism from a bureaucracy. Does NIXI have any clarity on what % of .in domains are used by cybercriminals? They’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” – Nikhil Pahwa, Medianama editor,

A brief sequence of events in Paranjoy Guha’s case:

September 30, 2019: NewsClick publishes the article, “The Maze of Political Links of Indiabull’s Sameer Gehlaut”.
March 11, 2020: Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited files a criminal defamation complaint (CC No. 1765/2020) at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The accused are NewsClick, Reader’s Editor Urmilesh, co-author Sourodipto Sanyal, editor Prabir Purkayastha and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.
June 6, 2025: A magistrate drops proceedings against Purkayastha. The other four are summoned under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which cover defamation. The formal summons, issued July 9, 2025, sets an appearance for July 30, 2025.
August 27, 2026: Legal counsel for Indiabulls founder Sameer Gehlaut sends a legal notice demanding takedown within 24 to 48 hours. The notice claims an Economic Offences Wing (EOW) status report changed the factual position. Guha Thakurta’s counsel replies on September 2.
October 24, 2026: Indiabulls Nests Limited and Gehlaut obtain an ex parte ad interim injunction in Civil Suit No. 529/2026 (Indiabulls Nests Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.). Guha Thakurta is Defendant No. 19. The order directs removal and de-indexing of his article, listed as Item A-33 in Schedule A.
October 25, 2026: The plaintiffs’ advocates email him the order and demand deletion and written confirmation of compliance.
October 26, 2026: Gehlaut emails him directly, threatening to move court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with disobeying an injunction. He notes the next hearing is on December 18, 2026. The same day, Gehlaut’s advocates file a court-order takedown complaint with Google.
October 28, 2026: Google Search Console notifies Guha Thakurta that it is blocking the article’s URL that is in paranjoy.in from google’s search results and Google.co.in.

List of all URLs specified in the Lumen database:

Also Read:

The post Hostinger briefly takes down Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s personal website over an old NewsClick article appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

This content is published by MediaNama and has not been created or edited by Hello Headlines. View original

Hostinger briefly takes down Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s personal website over an old NewsClick article

More in Technology

MobiKwik swings to Rs 12 cr profit in Q2, revenue up 9%

Flipkart Big Bang Diwali Sale 2026: ASUS ExpertBook business laptops start at ₹50,990 with up to ₹18,000 off

Pebble Qore Vox brings AI meeting notes to your wrist: Check price, features and battery life

Keralam aims to bring in special Act to protect women from social media attacks