New Delhi: Days after alleged emails from the Delhi Police asked X to take down the accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.in) and the handle @geoblockedindia, along with posts by 16 other users, over alleged defamation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), X Friday informed the Delhi High Court that the takedown notices were sent by “some impostor, and not by Delhi Police”.
X’s counsel told the court that an internal investigation had found the email to be fake and that a complaint had been filed with the Delhi Police to identify the impostor. X also said it was not taking any action against IFF and SFLC.in at this stage.
The petitions filed by IFF and SFLC.in, apprehending action against their X accounts, were heard together before the Delhi High Court. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for both organisations and placed on record X’s transparency reports and the legal notice sent in the RSS’s name.
IFF said the court recorded X’s statement and disposed of the petitions, with liberty to approach it afresh if any action is taken.
Speaking to ThePrint, a senior police officer said the document appeared to be fake and that no such request had been sent.
“The email mentioned in that document which is circulating is not of the Crime Branch. The document seems to be a fake. We are looking into the authenticity of the document,” the police officer said.
Also Read: Two notices in RSS’s name preceded the police requests
40 URLs targeted
According to alleged copies of the reports forwarded by X to IFF Tuesday morning, the requests were filed on 31 October and 2 November by Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) Hargobinder Singh Dhaliwal.
The first report, filed at 8.06 pm on 31 October, listed two posts about the notice, one each by IFF and SFLC.in. It described them as “defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh” under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The second report, filed at 8.51 am on 2 November, listed 40 URLs, including the full accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. It cited “hate speech”, “defamation”, “safety/security” and “enforcement of court order” as reasons for the requests.
In both reports, the fields seeking the nature and details of a court order were left blank. The second report stated that under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, “lawful notices require action within 3 hours”.
The 16 other users named in the reports include RSS ideologue Ratan Sharda (@RatanSharda55) and Congress leader Nasir Hussain (@NasirHussainINC). IFF said their posts commented on the notice.
X’s emails, sent “in the interest of transparency”, said IFF may wish to seek legal counsel. They did not specify whether X had acted on the requests.
Separately, @geoblockedindia received notifications of requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police’s Intelligence Department and the Delhi Police’s Cyber Crime unit. The Telangana request alleged that the entire account violated Indian law, MediaNama reported.
The matter dates back to the night of 29 October, when IFF, SFLC.in and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS.
It asked them to stop opposing the government’s blocking directions, documenting restricted content and posting details of geo-blocked posts. It also sought written confirmation within seven days that they would comply.
The alleged notice was signed by an unnamed “Authorised Signatory”. It also objected to SFLC.in’s Free Speech Tracker, alleging that it helped people reach blocked content through VPNs.
Several RSS office-bearers said on X that the notice was not authentic, while SFLC.in said it believed the notice to be fake. IFF published the notice and its reply on October 30 and wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it.
A second notice in the RSS’s name arrived on November 1. It said the matter had been taken up by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ body affiliated to the RSS, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF’s X account.
“We have sent them a legal notice through counsel and they have not yet responded in writing. Hopefully a formal response by them will help put a closure to the matter,” IFF’s Founder-Director Apar Gupta told ThePrint.
Why IFF has questioned legal basis of notices
IFF argues that defamation under Section 356 of the BNS is a non-cognisable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a court can take cognisance of it only on a complaint by the person aggrieved. Section 174 of the BNSS also bars the police from investigating a non-cognisable offence without a magistrate’s order.
The reports disclose neither a complaint by the RSS nor such an order, IFF has argued.
In Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, holding that a platform gets “actual knowledge” of unlawful content only through a court order or a government notification relatable to Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules was amended in October 2025, with effect from November 15 that year. The amendment required takedown intimations to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or, in the case of the police, a Deputy Inspector General (DIG). It also required the notices to be reasoned and reviewed every month by a Secretary-level officer.
A further amendment in February 2026 cut the compliance window from 36 hours to three.
A Special Commissioner of Police ranks above a DIG. However, IFF’s objection is that the reports give only a one-line reason for the 40 URLs and cite no court order.
The use of police takedown requests is also under challenge. In September 2025, the Karnataka High Court dismissed X’s petition against the Centre’s Sahyog portal, through which agencies send such requests. X appealed, and the Supreme Court has since stayed the High Court proceedings after the Centre sought their transfer.
SFLC.in took to X and said, “Since day one, we have been questioning the authenticity of these takedown notices. We have repeatedly written to the Delhi Police, seeking confirmation on whether these notices were indeed issued by them.”
The organisation called the requests “unlawful and disproportionate” and asked the police to disclose any underlying court orders. It also said that an email sent to the Delhi Police at the address provided in the notice had bounced back.
IFF said it had assisted 86 people in the three weeks before the first notice whose accounts were suspended or posts withheld in India. SFLC.in’s tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first 29 days of October.
Congress leader Pawan Khera said the Delhi Police had “behaved like the RSS’s enforcement arm”. The CPI(ML) Liberation also condemned the requests.
No public response from the Delhi Police or the RSS on the alleged takedown requests had been reported by Tuesday evening.
IFF has asked the police to withdraw both reports and disclose the complaint and legal authority behind them. It has also asked X not to act on the reports and to publish them to the Lumen database, and the RSS to state whether it authorised either notice.
“IFF will not delete the posts,” the organisation said.
(Edited by Anupama Yadav)
Also read:Meta apologises for brief removal of Modi video, MeitY summons global head of public policy