'It was an imposter': X tells HC takedown notices for IFF, SFLC not sent by Delhi Police

X told the Delhi High Court that notices seeking action against the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre had not come from the Delhi Police. Its internal investigation found that an imposter had sent them. This changed the case from a genuine police takedown request into an alleged misuse of the platform’s legal-request process.

The notices purportedly directed X to block the social media accounts of IFF and SFLC. After checking the notices, X concluded they were not authentic. The platform then filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the person responsible. The article does not identify that person or explain exactly how the notices were made to appear official.

X told Justice Amit Mahajan that the accounts would not be taken down. The court disposed of the petitions filed by IFF and SFLC after recording that submission. The episode has raised concerns about people misusing formal channels used to send legal and content-removal requests to social media companies.

The notices sought the blocking of two social media accounts. One belonged to the Internet Freedom Foundation, or IFF, and the other belonged to the Software Freedom Law Centre, or SFLC. The article does not state how many individual posts or other accounts were included beyond these two organisations’ social media handles.

The issue came before the Delhi High Court because IFF and SFLC challenged notices that appeared to have been issued by the Delhi Police. X investigated the documents and found that they had been sent by an imposter. That finding meant the requests lacked the official origin they claimed to have.

X told the court that neither account would be taken down. It also filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the person responsible. The court disposed of the petitions after taking note of X’s submission. Thus, the immediate target was two accounts, not an unspecified wider group.

In this case, an imposter was the person who sent notices while making them appear to be from the Delhi Police. The alleged impersonation mattered because official-looking legal or content-removal requests can influence whether a platform restricts an account. X’s investigation concluded that the notices were not genuinely issued by the police.

The purported notices asked X to block the IFF and SFLC accounts. X examined them internally and determined that an imposter had sent them. The article does not explain whether the person used false documents, an unauthorised account, or another method. It only establishes that the notices were presented as Delhi Police requests but were not actually from the department.

X filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the person responsible. The police complaint seeks an investigation into that person’s identity. The court was told that the accounts would remain active, and it disposed of IFF’s and SFLC’s petitions.

IFF and SFLC approached the Delhi High Court after receiving or learning of notices that purportedly came from the Delhi Police. Those notices directed X to block their social media handles. The organisations challenged the notices because the requests threatened access to their accounts and appeared to invoke official police authority.

The petitions were heard by Justice Amit Mahajan. During the hearing, X said it had conducted an internal investigation. The platform concluded that the notices had been sent by an imposter rather than by the Delhi Police. This finding addressed the central concern behind the petitions: whether a valid official request had actually been made.

X also told the court that it had complained to the Delhi Police and would not take down the accounts. After taking note of that submission, the court disposed of the petitions. The matter nevertheless raised broader concerns about misuse of channels for legal and content takedown requests.

The Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre will not lose their social media accounts because of the disputed notices. X told the Delhi High Court that its investigation found the notices were sent by an imposter. Since the requests were not genuine Delhi Police notices, X said the accounts would not be taken down.

The accounts had been targeted by purported notices asking X to block them. IFF and SFLC challenged those notices in petitions before Justice Amit Mahajan. X’s counsel explained that the platform had investigated the matter and had also filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the person responsible for sending the false requests.

The court disposed of the petitions after taking note of X’s assurance. The article does not describe any further restriction on the accounts. It does indicate that the alleged misuse of takedown procedures may be investigated, because X’s complaint seeks action concerning the identity of the person behind the notices.

X filed a police complaint after concluding that the notices targeting IFF and SFLC were sent by an imposter. The complaint was made to the Delhi Police. It seeks an investigation into the person responsible for submitting the purported requests to X.

The notices had appeared to direct X to block the social media accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Centre. X’s internal investigation found that the notices did not come from the Delhi Police. The article does not name the sender or give details about the person’s method or motive.

The complaint therefore focuses on identifying the alleged imposter. X told the Delhi High Court that the accounts would not be taken down. The court disposed of IFF’s and SFLC’s petitions after noting that position. The broader concern is whether official-looking request systems can be misused to seek unjustified restrictions.

Content takedown requests are formal demands asking a social media platform to remove, restrict, or block online content or accounts. They may be submitted through legal or official channels when someone claims that content violates law, platform rules, or another recognised requirement. Platforms review such requests before deciding whether to act. The article highlights why the authenticity of a request matters.

Here, purported Delhi Police notices asked X to block the IFF and SFLC accounts. X conducted an internal investigation and found that an imposter had sent them. Because the requests were not genuinely from the police, X told the court that the accounts would not be taken down. It also filed a police complaint.

The case shows the risk of abusing systems designed to process official requests. A false notice can appear authoritative and potentially lead to restrictions if it is not checked. X’s complaint seeks an investigation into the sender’s identity, while the court disposed of the petitions after recording that the accounts would remain online.