X told the Delhi High Court that an imposter sent notices seeking the blocking of IFF and SFLC accounts in Delhi Police’s name.
The platform said it had filed a complaint with Delhi Police and would not take down the organisations’ handles.
The notices cited criminal defamation and sought removal of posts and accounts; IFF and SFLC challenged their legality.
Social media platform X told the Delhi High Court on Friday that an imposter had sent notices seeking the blocking of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) accounts in the name of Delhi Police. The platform said its internal investigation found the notices were not genuine and that it had filed a complaint with the police.
X’s counsel made the submission before Justice Amit Mahajan while the court heard petitions filed by IFF and SFLC challenging the notices. The counsel also told the court that neither organisation’s account would be taken down.
“It was an imposter. We have done an internal investigation and it turn out this was an imposter. We have filed a complaint with Delhi Police,” the counsel said.
After recording X’s submission, the court disposed of the petitions filed by the two organisations.
Notices Sought Account And Post Removals
One of the disputed notices accused the organisations of publishing defamatory content against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and cited Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with criminal defamation.
A second notice listed 40 URLs, including 37 individual posts, and sought the blocking of the X accounts of IFF, SFLC and “Geo Blocked in India”. It also sought removal of posts by 16 other users who had commented on the controversy.
IFF and SFLC challenged the notices’ legality. They argued that criminal defamation is a non-cognisable offence and that police cannot investigate it without an order from a magistrate. They also said that blocking entire accounts was disproportionate and infringed the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
SFLC Said It Could Not Verify Notices
In its petition, SFLC said it had tried to confirm the notices’ authenticity with Delhi Police and X, but emails sent to addresses listed in the notices were returned as “undeliverable”. The organisation said X had not provided an official response.
“Petitioner No 1 [SFLC] also approached the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations Unit of the Delhi Police seeking verification. However, no confirmation or clarification has been provided in this regard till the filing of the present petition,” the plea said.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal represented IFF and SFLC. SFLC’s petition was filed through advocate Nakul Gandhi. Central government standing counsel Ashish Dixit appeared for the Union of India.
