Social media platform X informed the Delhi High Court on Friday that notices demanding the blocking of accounts belonging to the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) were issued by an imposter masquerading as the Delhi Police. The disclosure was made before Justice Amit Mahajan during the hearing of separate writ petitions filed by the two organisations challenging the purported takedown directions.
Counsel for X submitted that an internal investigation conducted by the platform had established the communications were fraudulent. The platform further informed the court that a formal complaint had been lodged with the Delhi Police to identify the person responsible for the impersonation. X also furnished an assurance that the social media handles of IFF and SFLC would not be suspended or blocked on the basis of the disputed notices.
In view of the clarification and the undertaking provided by X, the High Court disposed of the proceedings.
What was the legal basis cited in the fraudulent notices for seeking the blocking of accounts?
The fraudulent notices invoked Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to criminal defamation, as the statutory basis for demanding action against the organisations' accounts.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy originated when X received communications ostensibly issued by the Delhi Police seeking action against IFF and SFLC over allegedly defamatory content concerning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). One notice specifically invoked Section 356 BNS. Another communication referred to 40 URLs, comprising 37 individual posts, and sought the blocking of the X accounts of IFF, SFLC, and a handle identified as 'Geo Blocked in India'. The communication additionally demanded the removal of posts published by 16 other users who had commented on the matter.
Challenging the notices, the petitioners questioned both their authenticity and their legal validity. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for IFF and SFLC, argued that criminal defamation is a non-cognisable offence under the prevailing legal framework. Consequently, the police lack the authority to investigate such an offence without a prior order from a competent Magistrate. The petitioners further contended that seeking the blocking of entire social media accounts, rather than targeting specific allegedly objectionable content, was a disproportionate measure that infringed the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Verification Failures Highlighted by Petitioners
The Software Freedom Law Centre, represented by Advocate Nakul Gandhi, submitted that it had made attempts to verify the veracity of the notices with both the Delhi Police and X Corp. Emails dispatched to the addresses mentioned in the communications were returned as undeliverable. SFLC further stated that it had approached the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) Unit of the Delhi Police seeking confirmation regarding the notices but had received no clarification by the time the petition was instituted.
Aspect | Claim in Fraudulent Notices | Petitioners' Legal Challenge |
|---|---|---|
Statutory Provision Invoked | Section 356 BNS (Criminal Defamation) | Non-cognisable offence; police cannot investigate without Magistrate's order |
Scope of Direction | Blocking of entire accounts (IFF, SFLC, 'Geo Blocked in India') and removal of 40 URLs / 37 posts | Disproportionate; violates Article 19(1)(a); should target specific content, not whole accounts |
Origin of Communication | Purportedly Delhi Police | Emails undeliverable; IFSO unit provided no confirmation; later confirmed as imposter by X |
With X confirming that the notices originated from an unidentified individual impersonating the Delhi Police and undertaking that no adverse action would be taken against the organisations' accounts, the court concluded the hearing and disposed of the petitions.