Delhi Police Seeks Removal of IFF, SFLC Accounts on X Citing Defamation under BNS; Internet Freedom Foundation to Challenge Notices

Delhi Police Issues Notices to X Targeting Civil Society Accounts

The Delhi Police has issued two notices to the social media platform X under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, directing the removal of accounts and specific posts belonging to the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), the operator of the handle @geoblockedindia, and 16 other users. The notices, filed by the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), cite alleged defamation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The first notice, dated 31 October 2026 and bearing reference LD-321926, was filed as an "Illegal Content Report." It listed two posts: one by IFF published on 30 October 2026 concerning a legal notice allegedly issued on behalf of the RSS, and another by SFLC on the same day. The notice marked the categories of "safety/security," "defamation," and "other," while leaving the fields for court order details empty. The desired action specified was "Remove/withhold content."

A second notice, dated 2 November 2026 with reference LD-322956, significantly expanded the scope. It listed 40 URLs, including 37 individual posts and the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin, and @geoblockedindia. This notice ticked boxes for "hate speech," "defamation," "safety/security," "enforcement of court order," and "other." The stated reason referenced Section 356 BNS and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, asserting that lawful notices require action within three hours. The court order fields were again left blank.

Origin of the Dispute: Unverified Legal Notice

The sequence of events originated on 29 October 2026, when IFF, SFLC, and @geoblockedindia received a two-page legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS. The notice demanded that the organisations cease opposing government blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm compliance in writing within seven days. The notice was signed by an unnamed "Authorised Signatory." Subsequently, several RSS office-bearers stated on X that the notice was not authentic.

IFF replied to the notice and wrote to the RSS at its official address seeking confirmation of authorisation. On 30 October, IFF published both the notice and its reply. The Delhi Police filed the first notice to X the following evening, 31 October. A second legal notice in the RSS name arrived on 1 November, stating the matter had been referred to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and that complaints had been filed in multiple states seeking the blocking of IFF's account and the suspension of the organisations. By the time X forwarded the police notices to IFF on 3 November, the Delhi Police had already made its first request the previous evening.

IFF Condemns Police Action as Enforcement of Private Notice

In a detailed statement, IFF condemned the police action, characterising it as a police force making itself "the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed." The foundation noted that the demand in the private notice was that three organisations stop documenting censorship, and the police notices would effectively deliver that outcome by removing the accounts and posts that document such actions.

IFF further highlighted that the notices were issued without any court order, as evidenced by the empty court order fields in both police communications to X. The foundation also pointed out that X, in forwarding the notices, stated it was doing so "in the interest of transparency" and advised IFF to seek legal counsel and challenge the requests in court. X did not indicate that it had acted on the requests.

As of the date of the statement, the Delhi Police had not communicated directly with IFF, and no court had been approached in the matter, as far as the disclosures reveal. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported receiving notifications from X regarding similar requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police, and the Delhi Police's Cyber Crime unit, including one against the entire @geoblockedindia account.

What is the legal basis cited by the Delhi Police for seeking removal of the content?

The Delhi Police cited Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with defamation, as the legal basis for the alleged illegality of the content. The second notice additionally invoked Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, claiming a requirement for intermediaries to act within three hours.

Foundation to Challenge Notices in Court

IFF has called on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. Failing withdrawal, the foundation has declared its intention to challenge the notices in court. The challenge will likely centre on the absence of a judicial order authorising the takedown, the reliance on an unverified private legal notice as the predicate for state action, and the proportionality of seeking the removal of entire organisational accounts for posts commenting on a public controversy involving a legal notice whose authenticity remains disputed by the named organisation itself.

Comparison of the Two Police Notices to X

The development raises significant questions regarding the use of law enforcement machinery to act on unverified private complaints targeting documentation of state censorship, and the procedural safeguards required under the IT Rules before an intermediary is directed to disable access to information.