X Says Delhi Police Takedown Notices Against IFF, SFLC Were Fake

X determined that the takedown notices were not genuine communications from the Delhi Police. Its internal investigation found that an imposter had submitted the requests using the police’s name. X also filed a complaint with law enforcement authorities.

The notices were called “Illegal Content Reports.” They purportedly came from the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, and accused posts of defaming the RSS under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The reports sought removal of posts and withholding of accounts.

The finding mattered because the requests could have restricted speech and disabled accounts based on false official instructions. X told the court that it was not likely to act at that stage. The High Court recorded the statement and closed the organisations’ petitions, while allowing them to return if X later takes action.

A content takedown notice is a formal request asking an online platform to limit access to material posted by users. It may seek removal of a post, blocking or withholding of an account, or another restriction. Government agencies, courts, rights holders, or private complainants may send such requests, depending on the legal system and platform rules.

In this case, the purported Delhi Police reports asked X to remove posts published by IFF and SFLC.in. A second report sought removal of 37 posts and withholding of the accounts belonging to IFF, SFLC.in, and GeoBlockedIndia. The reports alleged defamation of the RSS under Section 356 of the BNS.

A notice does not automatically prove that content is unlawful. A platform must assess whether the request is authentic, legally valid, and specific enough to support action. Here, X later determined that the supposed police communications were fake, so it said it was unlikely to act at that stage.

The purported Delhi Police requests targeted both individual posts and entire accounts. The first report sought removal of two posts: one published by IFF and another by SFLC.in. The second report expanded the demand considerably.

Dated November 2, the second report sought removal of 37 posts. It also asked X to withhold the accounts of three entities: Internet Freedom Foundation, Software Freedom Law Center, and GeoBlockedIndia. The reports were submitted in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police.

The requests alleged that the posts defamed the RSS under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. IFF said the posts reproduced and commented on a legal notice they believed they had received in the RSS’s name. X later found that the purported police communications were fake and told the court it was unlikely to take action at that stage.

IFF and SFLC.in challenged the requests because they concerned posts that reproduced and commented on a legal notice issued in the RSS’s name. IFF argued that this activity was protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The organisations also questioned whether the requests were genuine and legally authorised.

IFF said the purported reports alleged defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, it said the reports did not identify any supporting complaint, First Information Report, Magistrate’s order, or court order. That omission raised questions about the authority behind the demands and whether X had a proper legal basis for restricting the posts or accounts.

IFF then sent a legal notice to the Delhi Police, copying X. It sought withdrawal of the reports and details of the authority under which they were submitted. IFF also asked X not to act until the requests were withdrawn or adjudicated, and approached the High Court after receiving no official clarification.

X’s finding changed the immediate dispute. The platform told the Delhi High Court that an imposter had submitted the requests in the Delhi Police’s name. It also said its internal investigation had found the communications fake and that it had complained to law enforcement authorities.

X’s counsel told the court that the platform was not likely to take action at that stage. The court recorded this statement and disposed of the petitions brought by IFF and SFLC.in. This avoided an immediate restriction based on the purported notices.

The organisations were not permanently barred from seeking judicial relief. The High Court granted them liberty to approach it again if X takes action against their accounts. The case therefore ended for the moment, while leaving a route for renewed legal challenge if the platform later removes content or withholds the accounts.

Before restricting speech, a platform can check whether the request truly came from the named government agency. It should verify the sender’s official email domain, signature, reference number, issuing officer, and contact details. It should not rely solely on the address or document supplied in the request.

The platform can contact the agency through a separately obtained official phone number or portal. It can ask for confirmation, the underlying complaint or case number, the specific legal provision, and the exact posts or accounts covered. It should also check whether the demand is signed by an authorised official and whether its scope matches the stated legal basis.

These safeguards are especially important here because X found that an imposter had used the Delhi Police’s name. Platforms can preserve the request, verification records, and decision rationale for later review. They can also notify affected users where lawful and allow them to challenge mistaken restrictions.

Intermediary safe harbour is legal protection for services that host or transmit content created by users. Under Section 79 of India’s Information Technology Act, 2000, an intermediary’s liability for third-party content is limited when it follows prescribed conditions. The protection concerns the platform’s role in hosting users’ posts, rather than making the platform the original speaker.

The article connects this framework to the wider takedown debate. It reports that MeitY is exploring withdrawal of safe-harbour protection from social media platforms. It also describes disputes over government requests, including the purported Delhi Police notices sent to X and a reported I4C direction to GitHub concerning three bitchat URLs.

Safe harbour matters because it shapes how platforms respond to unlawful-content claims and government demands. If protection is withdrawn, platforms could face greater liability for third-party posts. That possibility may affect moderation, transparency, and the balance between lawful enforcement and protected speech.