The Crossbill News Desk
The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has moved the Delhi High Court against takedown notices directing the removal of its X account and several posts, arguing that the communications purportedly issued in the name of Delhi Police could not be authenticated by the department.
Announcing the legal challenge on Thursday (November 5), the digital rights organisation said it had received the notices on October 31 and November 2 but had been unable to verify their authenticity despite repeated attempts to contact the police.
“We have approached the Delhi high court seeking the quashing of the takedown notices that directed the removal of our X account and several posts published on it,” SFLC said in a post on X.
The organisation said the notices remained unverified “despite repeated attempts” to seek confirmation from Delhi Police.
“Several emails were returned as undeliverable, and we are yet to receive an official response from the Delhi Police,” it added.
SFLC, a legal services organisation comprising lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, business professionals, students and citizens, works to “protect freedom in the digital world since 2010”.
The notices concern posts documenting legal communications received by SFLC.in, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the X account @geoblockedindia from an advocate claiming to represent the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
On Tuesday (November 3), SFLC had tagged Delhi Police in a post on X, asking the department to confirm whether the takedown communications had actually been issued by it. A day later, the organisation said the email address from which the notices were sent “does not exist” and that the contact address listed on the Delhi Police website was incorrect.
SFLC also shared an image of an email delivery failure, which it said showed that the address provided by the police for public communication was not functioning, even as takedown requests were being sent to citizens from an operational email address.
Following a letter from SFLC highlighting the discrepancy, Delhi Police corrected the email address on its website.
The organisation said: “We now urge @DelhiPolice and @hgsdhaliwalips to also clarify whether the takedown notices were actually issued and authorised by them.”
Explaining why it had approached the court, SFLC said: “The possibility of our entire account being taken down on the basis of unverified requests, without clear reasons or effective safeguards, has constrained us to file this petition.”
The controversy also involves IFF and @geoblockedindia, which received similar legal communications. Delhi Police has reportedly asked X to remove the IFF's entire account along with six of its posts. IFF has separately issued a statement detailing the notices, which it said were issued on behalf of the RSS, and the subsequent action by the police.
SFLC and @geoblockedindia have also reported receiving notifications from X about takedown requests attributed to the Uttar Pradesh Police, Telangana Police and the Delhi Police Cyber Crime unit.
In its November 3 statement, SFLC said the notices targeted posts discussing legal communications from an advocate purportedly representing the RSS. These included posts by users who had commented on or reshared the material, as well as posts by @geoblockedindia documenting alleged instances of digital censorship.
The first notice, received on October 31, objected to SFLC.in’s Free Speech Tracker and alleged that certain posts contained defamatory content. According to SFLC, the advocate also claimed that a court order supported the takedown demand. However, the organisation said the notice neither identified nor cited the alleged order.
SFLC argued that Delhi Police could not independently issue a content removal order for criminal defamation, which is a non-cognisable offence and requires a court order for such action.
The same advocate sent another notice on November 1.
“This notice stated that the matter had been transferred to the RSS’s legal and advocacy wing, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, and referred to complaints allegedly filed in different states,” SFLC said in its November 3 statement.
On the same day, X informed the organisation that it had received a request from “Indian Police” alleging that a post discussing the advocate's legal notice “violated Indian law”. SFLC said the notification did not specify the law enforcement agency involved, the statutory provisions invoked or provide a copy of the underlying order or request. The post remained accessible on X at the time of the statement.
On November 2, SFLC received another communication from X conveying further directions attributed to Delhi Police. The request covered 42 URLs, including the organisation's entire X account, and invoked intermediary-related provisions under the Information Technology Act and criminal defamation provisions.
SFLC objected to the demand to restrict its entire account instead of identifying specific content alleged to be unlawful. It said such a blanket measure failed to satisfy the standards of necessity and proportionality.
The organisation also argued that constitutional safeguards permitting reasonable restrictions on free speech could not be used to curtail the right to communicate and the public’s “corresponding right to receive information”.
It further questioned the invocation of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, arguing that intermediary liability provisions could be “used as an independent mechanism for restricting online speech, potentially bypassing the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009”.
SFLC also noted that a separate challenge to the powers of Delhi Police to issue takedown orders for social media content is already pending before the Delhi High Court.
Defending its work documenting online restrictions, the organisation said: “Documenting a restriction does not amount to endorsing the restricted content, facilitating access to it or encouraging circumvention of the law.”
Announcing the legal challenge on Thursday (November 5), the digital rights organisation said it had received the notices on October 31 and November 2 but had been unable to verify their authenticity despite repeated attempts to contact the police.
“We have approached the Delhi high court seeking the quashing of the takedown notices that directed the removal of our X account and several posts published on it,” SFLC said in a post on X.
https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2 has filed a petition challenging the takedown notices purportedly issued by the Delhi Police on 31 October and 2 November, 2026. We have approached the Delhi High Court seeking the quashing of the takedown notices that directed the removal of our X account and several posts published on it. Despite repeated attempts, the authenticity of these notices remains unverified. Our attempts to verify the notices with the Delhi Police have not yielded any confirmation. Several emails were returned as undeliverable, and we are yet to receive an official response from the Delhi Police. The possibility of our entire account being taken down on the basis of unverified requests, without clear reasons or effective safeguards, has constrained us to file this Petition. @nit_set @neha_aisa @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @JohnBrittas @svaradarajan @tajmahalfoxtrot @AbhinandanSekhr @ravish_journo @VTankha @derekobrienmp @cpimlliberation @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @MaktoobMedia @AroonDeep @SushantSin @tajmahalfoxtrot @seemay @dhanyarajendran @AbhinandanSekhr @MnshaP @MaktoobMedia @abhijeet_dipke @ravish_journo @whattalawyer @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @RSF_inter @IFEX @IndexCensorship @medianama @mediadefence @witnessorg @jencyjac @paranjoygt @baxiabhishek @seemay @NasirHussainINC @zoo_bear @free_thinker @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @ManishSharmaIYC @svaradarajan @PankajPachauri @clifroz @AnuradhaBhasin_ @NakulGandhi511
— SFLC.in (@SFLCin) November 5, 2026
The organisation said the notices remained unverified “despite repeated attempts” to seek confirmation from Delhi Police.
“Several emails were returned as undeliverable, and we are yet to receive an official response from the Delhi Police,” it added.
SFLC, a legal services organisation comprising lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, business professionals, students and citizens, works to “protect freedom in the digital world since 2010”.
The notices concern posts documenting legal communications received by SFLC.in, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the X account @geoblockedindia from an advocate claiming to represent the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
On Tuesday (November 3), SFLC had tagged Delhi Police in a post on X, asking the department to confirm whether the takedown communications had actually been issued by it. A day later, the organisation said the email address from which the notices were sent “does not exist” and that the contact address listed on the Delhi Police website was incorrect.
SFLC also shared an image of an email delivery failure, which it said showed that the address provided by the police for public communication was not functioning, even as takedown requests were being sent to citizens from an operational email address.
Following a letter from SFLC highlighting the discrepancy, Delhi Police corrected the email address on its website.
The organisation said: “We now urge @DelhiPolice and @hgsdhaliwalips to also clarify whether the takedown notices were actually issued and authorised by them.”
Explaining why it had approached the court, SFLC said: “The possibility of our entire account being taken down on the basis of unverified requests, without clear reasons or effective safeguards, has constrained us to file this petition.”
The controversy also involves IFF and @geoblockedindia, which received similar legal communications. Delhi Police has reportedly asked X to remove the IFF's entire account along with six of its posts. IFF has separately issued a statement detailing the notices, which it said were issued on behalf of the RSS, and the subsequent action by the police.
SFLC and @geoblockedindia have also reported receiving notifications from X about takedown requests attributed to the Uttar Pradesh Police, Telangana Police and the Delhi Police Cyber Crime unit.
In its November 3 statement, SFLC said the notices targeted posts discussing legal communications from an advocate purportedly representing the RSS. These included posts by users who had commented on or reshared the material, as well as posts by @geoblockedindia documenting alleged instances of digital censorship.
The first notice, received on October 31, objected to SFLC.in’s Free Speech Tracker and alleged that certain posts contained defamatory content. According to SFLC, the advocate also claimed that a court order supported the takedown demand. However, the organisation said the notice neither identified nor cited the alleged order.
SFLC argued that Delhi Police could not independently issue a content removal order for criminal defamation, which is a non-cognisable offence and requires a court order for such action.
The same advocate sent another notice on November 1.
“This notice stated that the matter had been transferred to the RSS’s legal and advocacy wing, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, and referred to complaints allegedly filed in different states,” SFLC said in its November 3 statement.
On the same day, X informed the organisation that it had received a request from “Indian Police” alleging that a post discussing the advocate's legal notice “violated Indian law”. SFLC said the notification did not specify the law enforcement agency involved, the statutory provisions invoked or provide a copy of the underlying order or request. The post remained accessible on X at the time of the statement.
On November 2, SFLC received another communication from X conveying further directions attributed to Delhi Police. The request covered 42 URLs, including the organisation's entire X account, and invoked intermediary-related provisions under the Information Technology Act and criminal defamation provisions.
SFLC objected to the demand to restrict its entire account instead of identifying specific content alleged to be unlawful. It said such a blanket measure failed to satisfy the standards of necessity and proportionality.
The organisation also argued that constitutional safeguards permitting reasonable restrictions on free speech could not be used to curtail the right to communicate and the public’s “corresponding right to receive information”.
It further questioned the invocation of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, arguing that intermediary liability provisions could be “used as an independent mechanism for restricting online speech, potentially bypassing the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009”.
SFLC also noted that a separate challenge to the powers of Delhi Police to issue takedown orders for social media content is already pending before the Delhi High Court.
Defending its work documenting online restrictions, the organisation said: “Documenting a restriction does not amount to endorsing the restricted content, facilitating access to it or encouraging circumvention of the law.”
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment