Challenging the alleged fake takedown notices issued in the name of Delhi Police, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC.in) and Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has separetely filed a petition in Delhi HC. They filed it after questioning whether the notices were authentic. The Delhi HC has listed this case on November 6.

In a statement, SFLC.in said its emails to splcp-crime-dl@delhipolice.gov.in, the address on the notices, bounced because the user “did not exist”. The statement says the notice was “purportedly sent from” that address. Later, it said that the Delhi Police had corrected the email. SFLC.in also said X’s Law Enforcement Request form initially had no way to verify who submitted a request, so someone “could potentially” impersonate an official. It later found X had added an email verification code.

This raises concerns about who has legal and official access to the centralized takedown notice issuer, the Sahyog portal and how those takedown notices reached X and how X informed the concerned users without necessarily validating the legality of the alleged fake takedown notice. 

What Happened? IFF has served a legal notice to the Delhi Police after X forwarded two “Illegal Content Reports” filed in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime). 

  • The first report, dated October 31, 2026, sought removal of a post published on October 30 and a post by @SFLCin.
  • The second, dated November 2, sought removal of 37 posts and the withholding of three accounts in their entirety these incluse, as specified above, @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia, on grounds that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with the criminal defamation.

IFF has called on the Delhi Police to:

  • withdraw both reports or disclaim them within seven days;
  • furnish the complaint and authority on which they were made; and
  • confirm no further takedown requests will be made on the matter.

Failing to do so,  IFF said it will approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226, which deals with the powers of courts to issue orders, including the government. As the Delhi Police hasn’t responded to their questions, IFF has filed a petition at the Delhi HC. 

“Defamation is a non-cognizable offence; police cannot investigate it without a Magistrate’s order, and cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the aggrieved person.

The reports cite no complaint, FIR, Magistrate’s order or court order, despite the “enforcement of court order” box being ticked. Under Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, an intermediary can be required to takedown content only on a court order or a reasoned government notification—not a web form with boxes ticked against 40 URLs and one sentence of reasons.

Whether something is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing the author; a police officer cannot decide it and direct a platform to act. Demanding three accounts be withheld in full is grossly disproportionate.” – IFF

Similarly, SFLC.in’s timeline of events

In a statement dated November 5, SFLC.in said it had received three takedown communications from X.

  • November 1: X told SFLC.in it had received a request from the “Indian Police” alleging that a post violated “Indian law”. The post discussed legal notices that SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindia received from an advocate purportedly acting for the RSS.
  • November 3, 8:48 AM: X emailed that the Delhi Police had sought action on five URLs: SFLC.in’s account and four posts.
  • November 3, 10:03 AM: A second email covered 42 URLs. These included posts by IFF and @geoblockedindia, comments and reshares by other users, and other @geoblockedindia posts documenting censorship.

The emails carried copies of two notices, issued in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime): Reference No. LD-321926 (31 October) and LD-322956 (2 November). The second invoked Section 356(1) of the BNS, Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. It demanded action within three hours, as per the IT Rules.

Section 79(3)(b) is the provision under which an intermediary can lose its legal immunity for hosted content if it ignores a government notice. SFLC.in said the fields for court order details were left blank in both notices. This was so even though the second notice said it enforced a court order.

What SFLC.in did

  • Checked the email: It examined the email headers and found the originating IP address was registered to X and listed as an authorised sender in its DNS records. The email from X was therefore genuine. SFLC.in questioned the notices inside it.
  • Wrote to X and the Delhi Police: It emailed X and posted publicly, tagging X’s accounts, asking which agency made the request, under what provisions, and for a copy of the order. It also emailed the Special Commissioner and three other senior officers.
  • Bounced emails: SFLC.in said two of the addresses, including splcp-crime-dl@delhipolice.gov.in, the one on the notice, returned errors saying the users did not exist. It also noted the address on the Delhi Police website had changed from “splcp-crime-dl” to “splcp.crime-dl”.
  • Tested X’s form: It said X’s Law Enforcement Request form initially had no way to verify who submitted a request, so anyone “could potentially” impersonate an official. SFLC.in later found X had added an email verification code.
  • Checked the officer’s authority: A Delhi Home Department order of June 2, 2026 (F. No. B/69/2025-Home-II/1246-1254) lists who may issue notices under Section 79(3)(b). SFLC.in said the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) “does not fall within any of the categories of officers authorised”.
  • Complained to the IFSO unit: It wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit, an authorised body, seeking verification.

Still trying to verify whether these are authentic.

Does this lawyer who started it really represent @RSSorg ?

Did @x verify that @DelhiPolice sent the takedown orders?

Did anyone check the provisions of law, authority?

Did @DelhiPolice send these? https://t.co/QNvnyjy5Ah

— Unapologetic (@mishichoudhary) November 4, 2026

SFLC.in said it had received no official confirmation “regarding the origin, authorisation or legal basis of these requests”. It also said seeking to restrict its entire handle “does not meet the necessity and proportionality standards”.

SFLC.in asked the Delhi Police to withdraw the requests, confirm whether it issued the notices, and disclose the legal basis and any court orders. It asked X to confirm whether it independently verified the officials and to acknowledge the gap in its request form.

Delhi HC will hear the case tomorrow. Follow the IFF’s proceedings using this case number: Case No.: W.P(C): 16671/2026

Also Read: 

The post IFF & SFLC moves Delhi HC over disputed Delhi Police takedown notices appeared first on MEDIANAMA.