‘Imposter’, not Delhi Police, sent ‘notices’ to take down IFF, SLFC accounts: X tells HC

The central issue was whether the Delhi Police had genuinely asked X to remove two digital rights groups’ accounts. X told the Delhi High Court that its internal investigation found the purported notices had been sent by an imposter. This mattered because the groups had challenged the notices as possible government removal orders.

The notices reportedly described the groups’ content as illegally defamatory about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. They sought removal of the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre accounts, along with posts and other accounts. X’s lawyer said the platform had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police after discovering the deception.

X also told the bench that the two accounts would not be taken down. After hearing that submission, the Delhi High Court disposed of the groups’ pleas. The episode raised concerns about how fake official communications could trigger platform restrictions and why government-linked requests must be verified carefully.

A takedown notice is a request or direction sent to a social media platform to remove particular online material. It can identify posts, links, pages, or whole accounts. The stated reason may involve alleged illegality, defamation, copyright infringement, or another claimed violation. The platform then reviews the request under applicable law and its own procedures.

Here, the purported notice was presented as an “illegal content report” from the Delhi Police. It asked X to remove 40 links covering 37 posts and the entire accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Geo Blocked in India. It also named posts by 16 other people.

However, X’s internal investigation concluded that the request came from an imposter. X told the court that the two digital rights groups’ accounts would not be taken down. Thus, the notice looked like a formal removal request but lacked genuine police authority.

The purported takedown request was broad. It listed 40 links connected to 37 posts and sought removal of three entire accounts. Those accounts belonged to the Internet Freedom Foundation, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Geo Blocked in India. The request also extended beyond those organisations.

It asked X to remove posts by 16 other people who had commented on the notices received by the digital rights groups. The article names several of them, including Ratan Sharda, technology journalist Abhishek Baxi, The Wire’s Editor Seema Chishti, and Congress’ Rajya Sabha MP Naseer Hussain. The request was framed as an “illegal content report.”

This scale made the purported communication especially significant. It combined account-level restrictions with removal demands targeting dozens of links and posts. X later said the communication came from an imposter, while the Delhi High Court disposed of the groups’ pleas after X confirmed their accounts would remain online.

The digital rights groups went to court because they could not verify whether the Delhi Police had genuinely issued the removal request. They contacted the police but received no response. Accepting unexplained restrictions could have removed their accounts and affected their ability to document and oppose government content restriction orders.

They also questioned the notices’ legality. The Internet Freedom Foundation said defamation is not a police matter and that a court can take cognisance of it only after a complaint by the person who is aggrieved. It added that police cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without an order from a magistrate.

The court challenge therefore sought clarity and protection against an apparently official demand. It became more important because the request covered entire accounts, dozens of posts, and other commentators. X’s later investigation supported the groups’ concern by finding that an imposter had sent the notices.

X’s internal investigation changed the case. The platform concluded that the purported notices directing removal of the digital rights groups’ accounts had come from an imposter, not the Delhi Police. That finding meant the notices could not be treated as genuine police requests.

X’s lawyer told the Delhi High Court that the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre accounts would not be taken down. The lawyer also said X had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police about the impersonation. The groups had approached the court after failing to receive confirmation from police.

Following X’s submission, the court disposed of the pleas. The accounts therefore remained available at that point, while the alleged impersonation was referred to the police through X’s complaint. The wider episode showed how a fabricated official-looking request could produce a serious takedown dispute before its authenticity was established.

A fake email address can imitate a government account and make a removal request appear authoritative. If the address is not genuinely controlled by the agency, recipients may struggle to confirm who sent the message. Altered directory details add another obstacle because people may not know which contact information is current.

The police report seen by Scroll appeared to come from “[email protected],” an address associated with Special Commissioner (Crime) Hargobinder Singh Dhaliwal. The Software Freedom Law Centre said that an email sent to this address bounced back on November 4. On November 5, it said the police directory showed a changed version using dots instead of hyphens.

These inconsistencies complicated verification for X and the digital rights groups. A platform must distinguish a genuine government request from an impersonation before restricting accounts. In this case, X ultimately found that the purported notices came from an imposter and reported the matter to police.

Indian law and platform procedures distinguish an allegation from a lawful removal basis. The article reports that the digital rights groups said defamation is not a police matter and that no court can take cognisance of it except on a complaint by the person who is aggrieved. They also said police cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without a magistrate’s order.

That distinction matters here because the purported police report described posts as allegedly defamatory about the RSS. The groups argued that this did not by itself authorize police-directed removal. The report nevertheless asked X to remove posts, accounts, and links. X later found the communication had been sent by an imposter.

Generally, platforms assess whether a request comes from a competent authority and whether it identifies a legal violation or breaches platform rules. Criticism or alleged defamation is not automatically the same as unlawful content. The article does not set out X’s full review standards, so this final distinction uses general platform practice.