The Fake Court Orders Behind India's 129-Betting Website Ban

India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) directed internet service providers to block 129 betting websites on the basis of two purported High Court orders that were later found to be fake, a Reuters investigation has found, prompting a police investigation into alleged forgery and cheating in Uttar Pradesh.

The two blocking directives were issued on July 21 and September 2, targeting 34 and 95 websites respectively. The purported orders were attributed to the Rajasthan High Court and the Allahabad High Court. Neither appeared in the respective courts' online records, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

The Rajasthan High Court registrar told Reuters that the order bearing the court's name appeared fraudulent and did not exist on its server. The Allahabad High Court subsequently confirmed that its purported order was fake and lodged a police complaint on November 6. A senior Uttar Pradesh cybercrime official confirmed to Reuters that the document was not a genuine court order. No arrests had been made as of Wednesday.

A Trail Of Emails

The first purported order reached the DoT by email on July 19, sent by a person identifying himself as advocate-on-record Aryan Chaudhary. It directed the blocking of 34 websites within 24 hours. Two days later, the department instructed internet service providers to remove access to the listed sites.

The second document, dated August 14, 2026, purported to be an Allahabad High Court order in Sahil Singh vs The Director General (DIT Cyber Law), MeitY & Others. It carried the court's logo, seal and the name of Justice Garima Prashad. An individual identifying himself as advocate Kartikey Pandey emailed it to government officials on August 22.

The 24-page DoT document containing the September 2 blocking directive also includes the internal correspondence preceding the action. On August 24, the department's Law Division noted that the email contained only a copy of the purported order, without the writ petition or supporting documents. On August 28, the technology division requested the 95 website URLs in an editable Excel file. The blocking instruction followed on September 2.

The purported order also carried a QR code that led to an unrelated webpage displaying only the case number, Writ-A 30480/2026. The High Court's complaint records that Justice Prashad's office confirmed no such order had been issued.

Questions Over Verification

The case has raised questions about how judicial documents are authenticated before government departments act on them. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, empowers the government to block public access to online information on specified grounds, including national security and public order.

Under Rule 10 of the Information Technology Blocking Rules, 2009, the designated officer must receive a certified copy of a competent court's order before forwarding it for action. The DoT correspondence raises questions about the verification process, although the available records do not establish whether certified copies were received or what authentication checks were conducted.

The DoT did not respond to Reuters' questions. Both blocking directives and the purported court documents remained available on its website as of Wednesday. Investigators have yet to establish who created the documents or whether artificial intelligence was used in their preparation.