Notices purportedly issued at police’s behest for takedown of IFF, SFLC accounts fake, X tells HC

X told the Delhi High Court that notices seeking removal of the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Center accounts were not genuine. The notices were presented as having been issued at the Delhi Police’s request. X said they were fake, so the dispute concerned both content removal and the authority behind the requests.

X’s counsel said the company had conducted an internal investigation. That investigation showed the notices had not been issued by the Delhi Police. The purported notices sought takedown of the organisations’ accounts and certain posts. SFLC challenged notices dated October 31 and November 2.

X assured the court that it would take no action against either organisation under the notices. It also told the court that it had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police about the fake documents. After recording X’s statement, the court closed the petition.

A takedown notice is a request or direction sent to an online platform to remove, block, or restrict access to specified material. It may identify an account, post, image, video, or web address. The stated reason is often that the material is allegedly unlawful or violates platform rules.

In this case, the purported notices asked X to withhold allegedly illegal content. They concerned the accounts of IFF and SFLC, along with certain posts and URLs linked to the organisations. SFLC said it received related notices from an individual claiming to represent the RSS.

The key issue was not simply whether content should be removed. X also had to determine whether the notices genuinely came from the Delhi Police. Its internal investigation concluded they did not. X therefore said it would take no action under them and complained to the Delhi Police.

The purported notices targeted two digital-rights organisations: the Internet Freedom Foundation, or IFF, and the Software Freedom Law Center, or SFLC. The notices therefore affected more than one organisation, rather than focusing on a single account or dispute.

They sought action against two broad types of online content. One was the organisations’ X accounts. The other was certain online posts or allegedly illegal content, including URLs linked to the organisation’s account. SFLC specifically challenged notices concerning its X account and certain posts.

The article does not give a total number of individual posts or URLs. It does establish the scope at the category level: two organisations and accounts plus posts or linked content. X later said the notices were fake and had not been issued by the Delhi Police, so no takedown action would follow.

X determined that the notices were fake through an internal investigation. The company told the Delhi High Court that this review showed the documents had not been issued by the Delhi Police. That finding challenged the notices’ claimed official origin.

The investigation mattered because the notices were presented as requests made at the Delhi Police’s behest. They sought removal or withholding of IFF and SFLC accounts and certain content. The petitioners had tried to verify the notices’ origin, authorisation, and authenticity with Delhi Police and X, but said they could not get confirmation.

After reaching its conclusion, X told the court that it would take no action against either organisation pursuant to the notices. It also filed a complaint with the Delhi Police regarding the fake notices. The court recorded X’s statement and closed the petition.

The legal challenge ended after X gave the Delhi High Court an assurance. X’s counsel said the company would take no action against IFF or SFLC under the purported notices. This removed the immediate threat of account or content takedown described in the petitions.

The petitions had challenged notices concerning the organisations’ X accounts and certain posts. SFLC specifically challenged purported notices dated October 31 and November 2. The petitioners had also questioned whether the documents were authentic, authorised, or genuinely connected to the Delhi Police.

The court noted X’s statement and closed the petition. The article also reports that X had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police about the fake notices. It does not describe any later police investigation, prosecution, or further court action.

The Delhi Police’s claimed role was to issue or request notices about allegedly illegal online content. In this dispute, however, X’s investigation found that the purported notices had not been issued by the Delhi Police. X was the platform that received the notices and had to decide whether to act on them.

The digital-rights groups were the affected parties. IFF and SFLC challenged the purported demands involving their accounts and posts. SFLC said it tried to verify the documents with Delhi Police and X, including their origin and authorisation. The court considered those petitions and recorded X’s assurance.

The court’s role was to hear the challenge and decide what followed from X’s position. X’s role also included investigating the notices and reporting the suspected fakes to police. The article does not report a later police finding or any further ruling after the petition was closed.

Platforms generally verify government notices before removing content because a false request can cause unjustified censorship. Authenticity checks help determine whether a demand comes from the stated authority and whether it is properly authorised. This matters especially when the targeted material concerns public-interest or rights-related work.

Here, X conducted an internal investigation after receiving purported Delhi Police notices. It found that the notices had not been issued by Delhi Police. The documents sought withholding of IFF and SFLC accounts and certain posts. X then said it would take no action under them and filed a complaint about the fakes.

This connects freedom of expression with intermediary responsibility. Platforms must address allegedly illegal content, but they also need safeguards against impersonation and unsupported removal demands. The article does not set out a general legal test. In this case, verification protected the organisations from action based on documents X found unauthorised.