Delhi Police asks X to remove accounts of digital rights groups IFF, SFLC

The Delhi Police asked X to remove posts and suspend accounts connected to the Internet Freedom Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center and Geo Blocked in India. The police alleged that the material was defamatory toward the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS. The request matters because the posts concerned censorship, legal notices and government blocking orders.

The first police report listed posts by IFF and SFLC. A later report listed 40 links covering 37 posts and requested action against the entire accounts of IFF, SFLC and Geo Blocked in India. It also sought removal of posts by 16 other people who had commented on the dispute.

The organisations said no court had been approached and that the police had not written directly to IFF. IFF said it would challenge the notices in court if they were not withdrawn. X had forwarded copies of the takedown orders to IFF.

The Internet Freedom Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center are described in the article as digital-rights groups. Their work in this dispute involved documenting, commenting on and challenging restrictions affecting online speech. The article does not provide a full organisational history for either group.

Geo Blocked in India is described as an X account that compiles blocking orders issued in India. It helped make restricted content and government directions publicly traceable. Posts by all three accounts discussed a legal notice sent in the RSS’s name and the government’s blocking directions.

Their role matters because independent documentation can show what content has been restricted and why. IFF said the notice demanded that the organisations stop criticising and documenting blocking orders. The groups reported receiving notifications about requests from several police units, including the Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Delhi Police.

The second police report substantially widened the requested action. It listed 40 links representing 37 posts and asked X to restrict the entire accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center and Geo Blocked in India. Thus, three organisational accounts were included.

The report also sought removal of posts by 16 other people. Those people had reportedly commented on the disputed legal notice. The named examples included RSS leader Ratan Sharda, technology journalist Abhishek Baxi, The Wire’s Editor Seema Chishti and Congress Rajya Sabha MP Naseer Hussain.

The report marked several reasons for action: hate speech, defamation, safety or security, enforcement of a court order and other. The foundation said the police had filed the second report a day after the first and that no court had been approached. X sent IFF copies of the takedown orders.

The Delhi Police filed an illegal-content report alleging that posts by IFF and SFLC were defamatory toward the RSS under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The posts documented and commented on a legal notice sent in the RSS’s name, as well as government blocking directions. The police therefore treated that criticism and discussion as potentially harming the RSS’s reputation.

In general, defamation is a legal claim that a communication has damaged an identifiable person’s or organisation’s reputation. Indian criminal law also recognises exceptions and requires the claim to meet legal conditions. The article reports IFF’s position that defamation is not a police matter and that a court can take cognisance only on a complaint by the person concerned.

The police report ticked boxes for defamation and other categories. IFF said the court-order fields were empty. The article does not report a court ruling deciding whether the posts were defamatory or whether the police action was lawful.

If X removes the accounts or posts, the groups could lose their main public channel for documenting government blocking orders. Readers might also lose access to records showing which content was restricted, what legal notices were issued and how the organisations responded. That would reduce the visible record surrounding online censorship.

The dispute gives a concrete example. IFF published the disputed notice and its reply after receiving the document, while Geo Blocked in India compiled blocking orders. The police then sought action against posts and the entire accounts of all three organisations. The report also targeted posts by people who commented on the notice.

The immediate outcome remained unresolved. IFF said it would challenge the notices in court if the police did not withdraw them. The organisations also condemned the action and said documenting censorship and challenging it in court are activities the Constitution expects citizens to undertake.

The RSS is the organisation at the centre of the dispute. The article describes it as the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The police alleged that posts by the digital-rights groups defamed the RSS, although several RSS office-bearers reportedly said the first legal notice was not authentic.

The Delhi Police filed illegal-content reports with X and asked for posts and accounts to be removed or withheld. X was the platform receiving those requests and forwarded copies of two takedown orders to IFF. The Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, described as a lawyers’ organisation linked to the RSS, was named in a later notice.

That notice said the matter had been handed to the Parishad and that complaints had been filed in several states. The article says Scroll sought comment from the Delhi Police, RSS and Parishad. It does not report their responses. IFF and SFLC were the groups whose posts and accounts were targeted.

Court orders, magistrate approval and procedural safeguards matter because restricting speech can affect public debate, journalism and access to information. Independent review helps test whether a complaint is legally valid, whether the targeted material actually breaks the law and whether the requested restriction is necessary and limited.

The article gives several reasons for concern. In the first police report, the boxes for safety or security, defamation and other were ticked, but the fields for the nature of a court order and its details were left empty. IFF also said no court had been approached. The second report included enforcement of a court order among its categories.

As a general legal principle, safeguards help prevent executive action from becoming an unchecked method of silencing criticism. The article does not state a specific rule requiring magistrate approval in this case. It records IFF’s position that defamation is not a police matter and that it would challenge the notices in court.