X informed the Delhi high court on November 6 that the takedown notices purportedly issued by Delhi Police against digital rights organisations Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) were sent by an impostor and not by the police. The company told the court that an internal investigation had indicated that the email through which the requests were submitted was fake, and that it had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police to identify the person responsible.
X also submitted that it had not taken any action against IFF and SFLC and was unlikely to act on the requests at this stage.
#BreakingNews
Imposter misused Delhi Police name to get IFF, SFLC handles blocked: X to Delhi High CourtRead here: https://t.co/XIHRPOnxYN
@DelhiPolice @internetfreedom @SFLCin https://t.co/c9yzlaYmKb— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 6, 2026
The controversy arose after X forwarded two takedown requests, dated October 31 and November 2, to IFF, seeking the removal of its account and posts. The requests were presented as having been issued by the Delhi Police. IFF had moved the high court challenging the order. Following X’s submissions, the court disposed of the petitions, granting the organisations liberty to approach it afresh if any action is taken against them.
The purported Delhi Police takedown requests also sought the removal of the X accounts of SFLC and the Geoblocked India, six posts by IFF and 37 other posts, including those by 16 individual users. The requests alleged that the content was defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The episode brings into focus the larger question of accountability in X’s content moderation and takedown processes, particularly when scores of users are served such notices every day. How did requests that X now says were fake pass through its systems and reach IFF and SFLC as communications from Delhi Police? It also raises questions about how the platform authenticates such requests and what checks are carried out to establish their origin.
How the Takedown Notices were Sent
The sequence of events began on October 29, 2026, when IFF, SFLC and the person running the Geoblocked India account received a two-page legal notice claiming to have been issued on behalf of the RSS. According to IFF, the notice arrived at 9:54 pm and asked the three organisations to stop opposing government orders to block online content, documenting blocked posts and sharing details of geo-blocked content. It also demanded a written undertaking within seven days that they would comply with these instructions. The notice was signed by an unnamed “Authorised Signatory”.
Last night IFF, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia received a legal notice said to be issued purportedly on behalf of the RSS. It’s hard to believe this comes from an organisation that has had a century to practise its paperwork and hence this may even be a weird prank! This notice asks us to stop criticising the Government’s blocking orders and stop documenting them. It also wants us to confirm in writing within seven days (seriously).
We can tell it’s an excellent teaching aid and here are seven lessons from it.
1) Say who you are: The notice names no advocate and gives no enrollment number. It is signed by an “Authorised Signatory” with no name. Replies go to a free Proton Mail ID, and the “office” is a residential flat in outer Delhi. A notice that can’t tell you who sent it is less a legal document than a weather event.
2) Have a grievance of your own: It never says how its client is harmed when we criticise a MeitY advisory. It complains on behalf of the Government’s blocking orders. The Union has no shortage of lawyers, and it hasn’t asked for volunteers.
3) Name the law: It threatens “appropriate legal action” under “the applicable provisions of law” and doesn’t cite a single section of any statute. A threat with no law, is literally an empty threat.
4) Don’t ask people to give up a fundamental right within seven days: The first demand is that we stop “publicly opposing” government directions. In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Supreme Court held that discussion and advocacy of a cause, however unpopular, sit at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). Opposing an order is how its legality gets tested. That is the Constitution working as intended.
5) Check whether the courts asked for the thing you want stopped” In Anuradha Bhasin (2020), the Supreme Court held that orders restricting fundamental rights must be made available so people can challenge them. The Reddit order is on the public Lumen Database because Reddit put it there. Reading a public database and saying what’s in it has a name. It’s called research.
6) Show us the spark and the powder keg: The notice says our work weakens national security measures, but it gives no instance, date or harm. In S. Rangarajan (1989), the Supreme Court held that the danger feared from speech can’t be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It has to be like a spark in a powder keg. A post about a Lumen filing is not a spark.
7) Read it once more before you press send: The paragraphs run 1, then an empty 2 and 3, then 4. A PIN code wanders into the facts. The account it targets is on “Twitter”.
Our reply is short. The notice is legally deficient because it makes no material allegation and cites no illegality. We will respectfully continue to advance constitutional rights, as we have done before. Notices like this rarely expect to win in court. They expect the recipient to get tired. We often are tired, but it has never changed what we do. Solidarity with @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia.
If your post or account has been blocked in India, write to legal@internetfreedom.in.
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) October 30, 2026
Several RSS office-bearers subsequently claimed on X that the notice was fake. IFF said it responded to the notice and wrote to the RSS at its official address seeking confirmation about whether it had been issued by the organisation. It also published the notice and its reply on October 30.
According to an IFF statement, the following day, on October 31, the special commissioner of police (crime), Delhi Police, purportedly sent a report to X seeking the removal of two posts. One was published by IFF on October 30 about the legal notice, while the other was posted by SFLC on the same day.
The request cited Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alleging that the posts were defamatory towards the RSS. It marked defamation, safety and security, and other as reasons for the takedown. However, it did not mention any court order or provide details of one. The police purportedly asked X to remove the posts or block access to them.
On November 1, the three organisations received another notice in the name of the RSS. According to IFF, this notice claimed that the matter had been handed over to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and that complaints had been filed in several states. It also stated that requests had been made to block IFF’s X account and suspend the accounts of the organisations.
Two notices sent in the RSS’s name, though their authenticity is still unconfirmed. Both demand that we stop challenging and documenting blocking orders. Now X says Indian police have made a request about one of our posts. https://t.co/7xLuYLDmgQ
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) November 1, 2026
On November 2, at 8:51 am, the special commissioner of police (crime), Delhi Police, purportedly sent another notice to X seeking action against 40 links. Of these, 37 were individual posts, while the remaining three were the X accounts of IFF, SFLC and Geoblocked India.
This request marked hate speech, defamation, safety and security, enforcement of a court order, and other as grounds for action. However, the section seeking details of a court order was left blank again. The notice alleged that the posts were defamatory and illegal under Section 356 of the BNS. It also cited the IT Rules, 2021, and required X to act within three hours.
The 16 other X users named in the notice were @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind. According to IFF, these users had posted about the legal notice or the controversy surrounding it.
Delhi Police asks X to take down IFF’s account and posts. IFF will challenge the notices in court unless they are withdrawn.
The Delhi Police has asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation’s account, six of its posts, the accounts of SFLC and @geoblockedindia, and posts by 16 other users, on the ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The posts document and comment on a legal notice sent in the RSS’s name to IFF, SFLC and @geoblockedindia, which demanded that the three stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders. IFF received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of 3 November 2026.
IFF calls on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. If they are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court.What has happened
On 29 October 2026 at 9:54 PM, IFF, SFLC and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page “legal notice” said to be issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the three to stop opposing the government’s blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm in writing within seven days that they would comply. It was signed by an unnamed “Authorised Signatory”. Several RSS office-bearers have since said on X that the notice is not authentic. IFF replied to the notice, wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it, and published both the notice and its reply on 30 October.
On 31 October 2026 at 8:06 PM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, filed an “Illegal Content Report” with X (reference LD-321926). It listed two posts: IFF’s post of 30 October on the notice, and SFLC post of the same day. The stated reason was that the posts are “defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”. The boxes for “safety/security”, “defamation” and “other” were ticked. The fields for the nature of the court order and court order details were left empty. The desired action was “Remove/withhold content”.
On 1 November 2026, a second notice arrived in the RSS’s name. It said the matter had been handed to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF’s X account and suspend the organisations. The Delhi Police had made its first request to X the previous evening. IFF did not know this until X told it on 3 November.
On 2 November 2026 at 8:51 AM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) filed a second notice with X (reference LD-322956). It lists 40 URLs. Thirty-seven are posts. Three are the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. This time the boxes for “Hate speech”, “defamation”, “safety/security”, “enforcement of court order” and “other” were all ticked. The court order fields were again left empty. The stated reason reads: “The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours.”
The 16 other users are @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind. Their posts, as far as IFF can tell, comment on the notice or on the notice about it.
X forwarded both notice to IFF on 3 November 2026, at 8:47 AM and 10:03 AM, saying it was doing so “in the interest of transparency” and that IFF may wish to seek legal counsel and challenge the request in court. X’s emails do not say that it has acted on the requests. The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police’s Cyber Crime unit, one of them against the whole of the @geoblockedindia account.
IFF’s position
IFF condemns this legal action. A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship. The notices would deliver exactly what the notice asked for as they would also remove the accounts of the three groups in India that keep public records of what is blocked, and of who ordered it.
The posts in question are about a legal notice sent to us. They quote it, criticise how it was drafted, and say that we will carry on with our work. A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it and that is not defamation of the sender.
In the three weeks before the first notice, IFF assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India. SFLC’s Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first 29 days of October. @geoblockedindia publishes the orders behind such blocks when platforms disclose them. None of this is unlawful. Documenting censorship and challenging it in court is what the Constitution expects of citizens.
IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court.Why the reports are unlawful
Defamation is not a police matter. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-cognizable and bailable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no court can take cognizance of it except on a complaint by the person aggrieved.
Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without an order of a Magistrate. The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) is not the person aggrieved. The notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no order of any Magistrate. Whether a statement is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing its author, with the defences of truth, fair comment and good faith available to that author.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation on the strength of these safeguards. A police officer who asks a platform to remove speech as defamatory has decided the question himself, without a complainant, a court or a hearing.
The posts are protected comment. Exceptions 1 to 3 to Section 356(1) protect the truth published for the public good, opinion on the public conduct of public servants, and opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question. The posts publish a notice that was sent to us and give our opinion of it. The RSS, if it sent the notice, chose to enter a public question. If it did not, the posts defame no one.
Further, Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) do not permit this. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary acquires “actual knowledge” only through a court order, or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are being committed. The court said that it would be difficult for intermediaries to judge the legitimacy of the millions of requests they receive, and that the burden must not be placed on them. Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in November 2025 and February 2026, now requires the intimation to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Deputy Inspector General, to be reasoned, and to specify the legal basis and the nature of the unlawful act, subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer. The three-hour window the notice invokes applies to a lawful order that meets these conditions. A web form that ticks “hate speech” and “enforcement of court order” while leaving the court order fields blank, and that gives one sentence of reasons for 40 URLs, is not such an order.
The notices by the Delhi Police are disproportionate. They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively. They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on speech must be necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available, and that orders restricting speech must be published and reasoned. Removing an organisation’s entire account for criticising a legal notice fails each of these tests.
The effect is to silence documentation of censorship and providing legal aid to Indian internet users. The accounts named are those that record blocking orders in India. The notice asked them to stop. A takedown request that accomplishes the demand of an anonymous private notice is not law enforcement. It is the use of state power for a private end, which Article 14 forbids.
Our demands
1. To the Delhi Police: Withdraw reports LD-321926 and LD-322956 and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and to IFF.
2. To the Delhi Police: Disclose the complaint on which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed, and whether any order of a Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS exists. Disclose every request made to any platform in this matter, including those made by the Cyber Crime unit against @geoblockedindia.
3. To X: Do not act on the reports. If any content is withheld in India, tell the affected user before acting, give them the full request, and name the legal basis. Publish both reports to the Lumen database, as the reporting form itself contemplates.
4. To the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs: Have the Secretary-level review required by Rule 3(1)(d) examine these intimations, and tell police forces that Rule 3(1)(d) is not a remedy for defamation, which the law reserves to the person aggrieved and to the courts.
5. To the RSS: State publicly whether it authorised either notice or any complaint to the police. If it did not, say so to the Delhi Police.
If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court. We will continue to document blocking orders, to publish them, and to provide legal assistance to anyone whose account or post is withheld in India. Nothing in these notices changes that.
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) November 3, 2026
On November 3, X forwarded both purported police notices to IFF at 8:47 am and 10:03 am, saying it was doing so in the interest of transparency. It also informed the organisation that it could seek legal advice and challenge the requests in court. However, X did not clarify whether it had acted on the requests.
IFF said the Delhi Police had not contacted it directly and that the matter had not been taken to any court.
Meanwhile, SFLC and Geoblocked India also reported receiving notices from X concerning similar requests purportedly made by the Uttar Pradesh Police, Telangana Police and the Delhi Police’s cyber crime unit. One of these requests sought to block the entire Geoblocked India account.
https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 strongly objects to the takedown requests targeting its X handle and posts documenting instances of online censorship in India.
On 3 November 2026 at 3:18 AM and 4:33 AM, https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 received an email from X’s Legal Department informing us that it had received takedown requests from the Delhi Police concerning 42 URLs. These include the handles of https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2, @internetfreedom, @geoblockedindia, and posts from the said organisations and other users. A separate notification identified five (5) URLs concerning https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s X account and our posts.
The requests relate to posts discussing legal notices received by https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2, IFF and @geoblockedindia from an advocate purportedly acting on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). They also include posts by users who commented on or reshared these posts, as well as other posts by @geoblockedindia documenting instances of digital censorship.
Chain of Events
1. On 29 October 2026, when https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2, IFF and @geoblockedindia (collectively “Organisations”) received a legal notice from an advocate purportedly acting on behalf of the RSS. The notice took objection to https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s Free Speech Tracker, which documents instances of censorship and online content restrictions and account takedowns in India. https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 and IFF raised concerns about the authenticity of the notice, which did not carry an official letterhead or identify an authorised signatory.
2. On 1 November 2026, the Organisations received another notice from the same advocate. This notice stated that the matter had been transferred to the RSS’s legal and advocacy wing, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, and referred to complaints allegedly filed in different states.
3. On the same day, X informed https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 that it had received a request from the “Indian Police” alleging that a post discussing the legal notice violated Indian law. However, this notification did not identify the requesting law enforcement agency, statutory provisions invoked, or provide a copy of the underlying order or request. The post remains accessible on X at the time of writing.
4. On 3 November 2026, X communicated further directions from Delhi Police covering 42 URLs, including the URL for https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s account itself. In the attached notices, the first notice refers to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 which deals with the offence of criminal defamation as the legal basis. The second notice refers to Section 356 of BNS and Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, read with Rule 3(1)(b) of the Information Technology Rules 2021, which deal with intermediary liability and due diligence of intermediaries as the legal basis. The grounds cited for the takedown requests concerning https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s X handle and posts include hate speech, defamation of RSS, and safety/security.
Takedown requests targeting https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s handle threaten its public service work
https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s X handle is an important public-facing channel through which it disseminates the organisation’s ongoing work to the general public. It is through https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 social media handles that users who face digital rights violation and online harms reach out to us for pro bono legal services. Through the handle we publish legal and policy analysis, document instances of censorship, raise awareness about digital rights violations, and communicate such information with the public including journalists, researchers, civil society organisations among others. It also serves as a channel for sharing developments concerning internet shutdowns, content restrictions, account takedowns and other violations of digital rights and for providing important assistance, through RightsLine, to citizens facing online harms ranging from gender based violence and harassment to cyberfraud.
A direction seeking the takedown of an organisation’s entire account, rather than addressing specific content through a transparent and legally established process, would have consequences far beyond the posts that have been identified. It would also deprive the public of an established and credible source of information on digital rights and the exercise of fundamental freedoms online.
The request to restrict https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s entire X handle, rather than identifying and seeking the removal of specific allegedly unlawful content does not meet the necessity and proportionality standards. The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution extends to disseminate information, circulate ideas and reach an audience. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms must not be arbitrary or excessive and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their legitimate objective (Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118). Any restriction on an organisation’s established channel of communication must therefore be assessed in light of its wider impact on the organisation’s ability to exercise its rights and the public’s corresponding right to receive information.
Further, the reliance on Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, raises questions to whether intermediary liability provisions are being used as an independent mechanism for restricting online speech, potentially bypassing the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b), clarifying that an intermediary’s obligation to remove or disable access to content must arise from a court order or notification by the appropriate government or its agency, and that such orders or notifications must strictly conform to the grounds enumerated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 79(3)(b), which forms part of the intermediary safe-harbour framework, cannot be treated as an unrestricted or independent source of blocking power or used to circumvent the safeguards governing restrictions on online information.
It is also pertinent to note that https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 in Software Freedom Law Center, India v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors, W.P.(C) 7650/2025 has also challenged the constitutional legality of the notification issued by Lieutenant Governor (LG) which empowers the Delhi Police to issue takedown orders for removal of online content from social media. The matter is currently pending in the Delhi High Court.
Documenting censorship is not facilitating circumvention
The Free Speech Tracker is an initiative to document instances of censorship in India. Its purpose is to make censorship visible, identify patterns in content moderation and provide the public with information about restrictions affecting online expression.
Documenting a restriction does not amount to endorsing the restricted content, facilitating access to it or encouraging circumvention of the law. Over the last few months, we have seen an unprecedented number of online content restrictions happening in India, and in the absence of adequate transparency from the government and platforms about the nature, extent and legal basis of these restrictions, we wanted to document these instances in a manner that is informative to the general public. Freedom of expression encompasses not only the right to publish and disseminate information but also the right to question restrictions on speech, seek accountability and scrutinise decisions affecting public discourse.
Independent civil society organisations like ours play an important role in documenting these developments and ensuring that restrictions on online expression do not go unnoticed. Such takedown requests risk creating a chilling effect on public-interest advocacy and may discourage individuals from discussing or questioning instances of censorship.
Irregularities in notice received
The first notice received by https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 from X, pertains to this post. The notice states that the content in question is being reported on the grounds of ‘safety/security; defamation; and other’. Furthermore, the notice states that the post is “defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under the Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).” Criminal defamation under Section 356 of the BNS, 2023, is a non-cognizable offence and therefore, requires a court order for the police to initiate action.
The second notice received, pertains to a list of 42 posts and accounts. The notice states that the content in question is being reported on the grounds of “Hate speech; safety/security; defamation; enforcement of court order; and other’. The posts published by https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 did not contain any defamatory statements or allegations against RSS, as it was purely factual reporting based on information relating to the notice received by the Organisations on 29 October 2026.
Furthermore, criminal defamation is a non-cognizable offence which requires a court order for the police to initiate action. The Delhi Police is not empowered to issue a content takedown order for such offence via the Sahyog Portal in the absence of such an order. While the notice mentions enforcement of a court order as one of the grounds, no such court order is cited or made available in the notice. Additionally, the notice does not identify a legal basis or statutory provision for the offences of hate speech or safety/security. The notice also relies on Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 read with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and states that action must be taken by X within 3 hours.
Therefore, in light of the above, https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 condemns the takedown request issued by the Delhi Police and maintains that they are unlawful, disproportionate and violative of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 calls upon the Delhi Police and the concerned authorities to immediately withdraw these requests. If there exists any relevant court order directing the removal of the content, https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 calls upon the Delhi Police to provide copies of said order to the Organisations (https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2, IFF, and @geoblockedindia) posthaste.
We stand in solidarity with all individuals and organisations affected by these takedown requests and reaffirm our commitment to defending their right to speak, document and question restrictions on online expression. Transparency, accountability and access to remedies must remain central to any process that seeks to restrict online expression.
— SFLC.in (@SFLCin) November 3, 2026
IFF Challenged the Legal Basis of the Requests
According to IFF, the police action was unlawful because criminal defamation is not an offence that the police can investigate on their own.
Under Section 356 of the BNS, 2023, criminal defamation is a bailable and non-cognisable offence. This means the police cannot investigate it without permission from a magistrate. Further, Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides that a court can take cognisance of a defamation case only on a complaint made by the person claiming to have been defamed.
IFF issued a legal notice to the Delhi Police on November 4, with a copy served on X Corp. It challenged the takedown requests, arguing that the notices did not mention any complaint, FIR, magistrate’s order or court order, despite marking the requests as involving the enforcement of a court order.
Statement: Legal notice to the Delhi Police and X Corp. over takedown demands against IFF’s account
On 3 November 2026, X Corp. forwarded to us two “Illegal Content Reports” submitted in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), @delhipolice. The first, dated 31 October, sought removal of a post we published on 30 October and a post by @SFLCin. The second, dated 2 November, sought removal of 37 posts and the withholding of three accounts in their entirety, @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia, on the ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The posts in question reproduce and comment on a legal notice that was sent to us. They are protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. We were given no notice before these reports were filed. We learnt of them only because X forwarded copies.
Today, through our counsel Advocate Abhik Chimni and his colleagues, we served a legal notice on the Delhi Police, with a copy to X Corp.
Our position is simple:
1. Defamation is a non-cognizable offence. The police cannot investigate it without a Magistrate’s order, and cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the person aggrieved.
2. The reports cite no complaint, no FIR, no Magistrate’s order and no court order, even though the box for “enforcement of court order” was ticked. Under Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, an intermediary can be required to take down content only on a court order or a reasoned government notification. A web form with “hate speech”, “defamation”, “safety/security” and “court order” ticked against 40 URLs, with one sentence of reasons, is not that.
3. Whether something is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing the author. A police officer cannot decide it himself and direct a platform to act on his decision. Demanding that three accounts be withheld in full is grossly disproportionate to any grievance stated.
We have called upon the Delhi Police to withdraw both reports or disclaim within seven days, to furnish us the complaint and authority on which they were made, and to confirm that no further takedown requests will be made on this matter. If they do not, we will approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226. We have also requested X Corp. to take no action on the reports pending their withdrawal or adjudication.
We are grateful to Advocate Abhik Chimni and his team for representing us in this matter. Redacted copies of the notice are attached.
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) November 4, 2026
Citing the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgment, IFF argued that online content can be taken down only on the basis of a court order or a valid government notification that provides clear reasons for the restriction. Merely marking categories such as hate speech and defamation against 40 URLs, it said, did not meet these requirements.
IFF asked the police to withdraw the notices within seven days and urged X not to act on the requests. It also warned that it would approach the Delhi High Court if the police failed to respond.
With no response from the Delhi Police, IFF subsequently moved the high court through a writ petition. SFLC also filed a separate petition challenging the purported takedown notices.
Due to the lack of any official denial or rescision by the Delhi Police for the takedown notices for IFF’s X Account that were communicated by X to us, IFF has been constrained to file a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The matter is registered and will come up for hearing tomorrow. We rely on your good wishes and support.🤞
— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) November 5, 2026
SFLC Questioned Authenticity of the Notices
Apart from challenging the legal basis of the takedown requests, SFLC raised questions about whether the notices had actually been issued by the Delhi Police.
According to the organisation, it emailed the Delhi Police at the address mentioned in the notices to verify whether the requests against its X account and posts were genuine. However, the email bounced back with a message stating that the account did not exist.
To verify the authenticity of the takedown orders we received yesterday, issued against https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s X handle and posts, we emailed @DelhiPolice at the email ID mentioned in the orders. However, our email bounced back with a message stating that the user does not exist.
Interestingly, the same email address is also listed on the Delhi Police website. We had verified the same.
This raises questions about the authenticity of the takedown orders. @DelhiPolice, @hgsdhaliwalips could you please confirm if these orders were issued by you?
@nit_set @neha_aisa @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @JohnBrittas @svaradarajan @tajmahalfoxtrot @AbhinandanSekhr @ravish_journo @VTankha @derekobrienmp @cpimlliberation @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @MaktoobMedia @AroonDeep
— SFLC.in (@SFLCin) November 4, 2026
Interestingly, SFLC pointed out that the same email address was listed on the Delhi Police’s official website. This raised questions about the authenticity of the notices and prompted the organisation to seek confirmation from the Delhi Police on whether they had issued the requests.
SFLC had also written to X seeking clarity on the mechanism through which the Delhi Police had submitted the requests, how the platform verified requests received through its Legal Request Portal, and whether the requests had actually originated from the police and officer HGS Dhaliwal.
It also asked X whether it had received any court orders or other supporting documents along with the takedown requests.
https://t.co/X7ipfsVLzu has concerns about the authenticity of the takedown orders purportedly sent by the Delhi Police to X, seeking the removal of https://t.co/X7ipfsVLzu’s X account and posts.
To verify this, we have written to @XCorpIndia requesting clarity on:
(i) The channels or mechanisms through which the Delhi Police submitted the takedown requests to X.
(ii) X’s verification process for requests submitted through its Legal Request Portal.
(iii) Whether these requests were actually submitted by @DelhiPolice and @hgsdhaliwalips.
(iv) Whether X received any accompanying court orders, directions, or other supporting documents in relation to these requests.
Read our full letter below. 👇
@GlobalAffairs @elonmusk @X
@nit_set @neha_aisa @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @JohnBrittas @svaradarajan @tajmahalfoxtrot @AbhinandanSekhr @ravish_journo @VTankha @derekobrienmp @cpimlliberation @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @MaktoobMedia @AroonDeep @dhanyarajendran @PankajPachauri @clifroz @ManishSharmaIYC @zoo_bear @free_thinker
— SFLC.in (@SFLCin) November 4, 2026
The organisation questioned the legal basis of the notices, which cited defamation, hate speech and safety concerns, and pointed out that they sought to take down its entire X account without providing any court orders to support such action.
https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s Statement Condemning Takedown Directions Affecting Digital Rights Organisations in India.
https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 has received two notifications from X regarding takedown requests issued by the Delhi Police concerning 42 URLs, including the handle and posts of https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2, @internetfreedom, @geoblockedindia, and other users.
The requests cite defamation, hate speech, and safety/security as grounds for removal. https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 raises serious concerns regarding the legal basis, necessity, and proportionality of these requests, particularly their inclusion of the organisation’s handles, the absence of any disclosed court orders supporting the proposed restrictions, and the potential circumvention of established procedural safeguards.
We believe that these requests are unlawful and disproportionate and undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 stands in solidarity with IFF, @geoblockedindia, and all other individuals and organisations affected by these requests. We reaffirm our commitment to protecting the right to independently document, review, and challenge restrictions on online expression.
Your support is more important than ever in helping us sustain this work. Every contribution enables us to continue defending digital rights and freedom of expression, pushing back against online harms, and working towards a safer, freer internet for everyone. Every donation, regardless of its size, makes a difference.
Donate here: https://t.co/SAbM9qAL24
Read our full statement below. 👇
@VTankha @derekobrienmp @JohnBrittas @neha_aisa @cpimlliberation @SushantSin
— SFLC.in (@SFLCin) November 3, 2026
Geoblocked India and Concerns over Documenting Censorship
The administrator of X handle Geoblocked India identified themselves as a teenager who documents cases of social media censorship as a part-time hobby. The user said they would not challenge the takedown request because they could not afford to fight the matter legally while remaining anonymous.
For those wondering why I won’t fight back if my account gets blocked, try to see it from my perspective. I’m a teenager who started documenting online censorship and digital rights out of personal interest. My parents don’t know about all my work, and they aren’t familiar with +
— Geo Blocked in India 𝕎 (@geoblockedindia) November 3, 2026
They, however, expressed solidarity with IFF and SFLC for their work on online censorship. As of November 5, around 2:40 pm, the Geoblocked India account remained active on X.
Geoblocked India regularly tracks and reports instances of social media accounts and posts being withheld in India. SFLC, meanwhile, documents restrictions on online speech through its Free Speech Tracker, while IFF works on a range of digital rights issues, including free speech, internet shutdowns, privacy, surveillance, net neutrality and accountability of online platforms.
With X now telling the High Court that the notices were sent by an impostor and that it had not acted on them, the immediate threat of takedown has receded. However, the identity of the person who submitted the requests and the circumstances in which they were processed remain to be established. The court has left the organisations with the liberty to return if X takes any action on the requests.
