BREAKING
X tells Delhi High Court takedown notices for IFF and SFLC were sent by imposter
The social media platform confirmed in court that an internal probe revealed fraudulent legal demands targeting digital rights organisations.
What happened in court
Social media platform X told the Delhi High Court on Friday that notices directing it to block the accounts of digital rights organisations Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) were submitted by an imposter impersonating the Delhi Police.
Appearing before Justice Amit Mahajan, counsel for X stated that an internal investigation revealed the notices did not originate from law enforcement. The platform confirmed it filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the imposter and assured the court that it will not take down or restrict the accounts of IFF and SFLC.in.
"It was an imposter. We have done an internal investigation and it turns out this was an imposter. We have filed a complaint with Delhi Police," X's counsel told the bench, adding that the platform treated the communication as an illegal request.
Following X's submission, the court disposed of the writ petitions filed by IFF and SFLC.in, granting both organisations liberty to approach the court again if any action is taken against their handles in the future.
Origin of the fake police notices
The dispute began after X notified IFF and SFLC.in on 3 November that it had received regulatory requests regarding their accounts. The platform forwarded two "Illegal Content Reports" naming the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, as the sender.
The notices targeted posts published by the rights groups regarding a legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The fake police orders claimed the posts defamed the RSS under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
| Notice Date | Purported Sender | Target Accounts | Scope of Takedown Request |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 October 2026 | Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) | IFF, SFLC.in | Removal of 2 posts published on 30 October |
| 2 November 2026 | Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) | IFF, SFLC.in, GeoBlockedIndia | Removal of 37 posts and withholding of 3 accounts |
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing both organisations, told the court that SFLC.in had emailed the address listed in the notices to verify their authenticity, but the message bounced back. Sibal also highlighted that the legal notice sent in the name of the RSS lacked a lawyer's details or signature, and questioned how police could issue takedown demands over non-cognisable criminal defamation allegations without an FIR or court order.
IFF had served a notice on the Delhi Police seeking clarification and filed the writ petition after receiving no response. During Friday's hearing, an advocate representing the Delhi Police was present in court but made no submissions.
Why it matters for digital governance
The revelation exposes serious vulnerabilities in how social media platforms handle, verify, and relay law enforcement requests. When intermediaries forward unverified government takedown demands to users, it creates an immediate chilling effect on public commentary and rights advocacy.
For technology companies, founders, and legal compliance teams, the case highlights three urgent operational risks:
First, verification pipelines for official communications are dangerously weak. If an imposter can generate automated warning notices to users by posing as a senior police official, current intake checks are failing to validate the origin of legal demands.
Second, automated transparency notices can inadvertently amplify intimidation. While X shared the reports in the interest of transparency, the threat of account suspension was communicated to the targeted groups before the platform verified whether the request was genuine.
Third, it reflects an increasing trend of bad actors exploiting legal compliance tools to silence critical speech. Fake copyright and legal notices have frequently been weaponised on major platforms to remove investigative reports and political commentary.
Broader regulatory backdrop
This dispute comes amid intensifying scrutiny over content moderation rules and intermediary liability in India.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is currently examining whether to withdraw safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Safe harbour shields platforms from legal liability for user-generated content, provided they comply with government takedown orders and due diligence requirements.
At the same time, state agencies have stepped up fast-track compliance demands. In July, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) gave code repository GitHub three hours to block access to URLs hosting source code for bitchat, an open-source peer-to-peer messaging app. Former Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey publicly cited the directive, which raised concerns over anonymous communications.
With regulatory compliance windows shrinking and statutory immunity under review, tech platforms face a growing dilemma: automated compliance risks suppressing legitimate speech, while thorough verification risks regulatory penalties for delay.
What happens next
With the High Court disposing of the petitions, attention moves to the Delhi Police investigation into the identity of the imposter.
X stated in court that it lodged its formal police complaint on Thursday night. Law enforcement authorities have not yet issued a statement or announced any suspects.
Should X receive fresh takedown orders or attempt to restrict the accounts of IFF, SFLC.in, or GeoBlockedIndia, the High Court has permitted the organisations to reinstate their legal challenge.