Source : Reuters
NEW DELHI, November 6, 2026 — Social media company X told the Delhi High Court on Friday that purported Delhi Police orders seeking the blocking of accounts belonging to two prominent Indian free-speech groups were fake, Reuters reported.
X said an internal review indicated the notices had been sent by an impostor impersonating police, and that it had filed a complaint with Delhi Police to identify the sender. Counsel for the platform told the court it had not acted on the notices. Justice Amit Mahajan disposed of petitions brought by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC.in), granting them liberty to return if action was later taken against their accounts.
The groups had gone to court after X forwarded “illegal content” reports that appeared to come from the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime). One notice dated October 31 sought removal of posts; a second dated November 2 sought removal of dozens of posts and the withholding of the accounts of IFF (@internetfreedom), SFLC.in (@SFLCin) and @geoblockedindia. The notices alleged criminal defamation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and invoked intermediary rules under India’s information technology law.
SFLC.in said emails to the address named on the notices initially bounced, and that fields for court-order details were blank even where a court order was claimed. Live Law and Lawbeat reported that senior counsel for the petitioners told the court the authenticity of the notices had been in doubt from the outset.
Reuters said the episode sparked a public outcry after the groups warned that fabricated official orders could be used to silence online speech. Hindu Business Line carried the Reuters account that X told the court the notices targeting the free-speech organisations were not issued by Delhi Police.
India’s intermediary rules require platforms to act on valid government notices or risk losing liability protections. Digital rights lawyers have long argued that weak verification on takedown portals leaves room for impersonation. MediaNama reported that X’s law-enforcement request form had recently added an email verification code after the groups raised the issue.
Delhi Police had not issued a detailed public statement confirming the impostor account by the time the court disposed of the petitions, according to the contemporaneous court reporting. X’s complaint asks investigators to trace who submitted the forged requests.
The case sits against a wider debate in India over content moderation, political speech and the powers of police and central agencies to compel platforms to remove posts. Free-speech advocates said a clear finding that the orders were forged should prompt tighter authentication for official notices.
IFF and SFLC.in said their posts had discussed legal notices they received in connection with commentary on the RSS, which they argued was protected speech. The court did not rule on the substance of those posts once X said it would not enforce the disputed notices.
Source: Reuters on X, with background from Live Law, Lawbeat, Hindu Business Line and MediaNama.
About The Author
