X tells Delhi High Court that police-style takedown notices against IFF and SFLC were fake

On 6 November 2026, X told the Delhi High Court that Illegal Content Reports filed in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, and aimed at digital rights groups Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in), were not genuine police notices. Indian Express, The Hindu and LiveLaw all report that counsel for X said an internal probe found an impostor, that the company filed a complaint with Delhi Police, and that it had not acted against the accounts.

IFF's own case note says the reports (LD-321926 and LD-322956) sought removal of posts and, in the second filing, entire accounts including @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia, citing alleged defamation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The groups say they first learned of the reports when X forwarded them on 3 November, after earlier receiving a Proton Mail legal notice that also claimed to speak for the RSS.

Justice Amit Mahajan recorded X's statement and disposed of the petitions with liberty to approach the court again if action is taken later. Indian Express separately noted that Delhi Police, through standing counsel, also clarified it had not sent such requests. IFF welcomed the outcome but said open questions remain about how someone submitted reports in a senior officer's name using a Delhi Police domain style email on X's public form.

For India's platform rules debate, the episode is a concrete warning about unverified law enforcement requests and three hour takedown pressure under the IT Rules. It sits beside MeitY talk about rewriting safe harbour for algorithmic platforms, and it shows how quickly a forged notice can threaten speech before courts and platforms sort out authenticity.