The Delhi High Court on Friday disposed of petitions filed by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), after social media platform X informed the court that two takedown notices purportedly issued by the Delhi Police appeared to have been sent by an impostor.

X told the court that an internal investigation had indicated that the email account used to send the notices was fake and that it had lodged a complaint with the Delhi Police to investigate the matter. The platform also stated that it was not likely to take any action on the notices at this stage.

Taking note of X's statement, court disposed of the petitions while granting IFF and SFLC liberty to approach it afresh if any action was subsequently taken against their accounts or posts.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for both organisations and placed on record X's transparency reports and a legal notice sent by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Advocate Abhik Chimni also represented the organisations.

The petitions were filed after X forwarded two reports, purportedly submitted in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, seeking the removal of posts published by IFF and SFLC.

According to IFF, the first report, dated October 31, sought the removal of a post published by it on October 30, along with a post published by SFLC.

The second report, dated November 2, sought the removal of 37 posts and the withholding of three X accounts in their entirety, namely those belonging to IFF (@internetfreedom), SFLC (@SFLCin) and @geoblockedindia.

The reports alleged that the posts defamed the RSS under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and invoked Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The organisations maintained that the posts merely reproduced and commented on a legal notice sent to IFF and constituted protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Before approaching the high court, IFF had issued a legal notice to the Delhi Police and X on November 3, seeking withdrawal of the two reports. It also demanded disclosure of the complaint and legal authority under which the reports had been submitted.

In its notice, IFF contended that defamation under Section 356 BNS was a non-cognizable offence and that the police could not investigate it without an order from a magistrate. It further argued that cognizance of the offence could be taken only upon a complaint by the person aggrieved.

The notice pointed out that the reports did not disclose any complaint, FIR, Magistrate's order or court order, despite one of them invoking the ground of enforcement of a court order.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), IFF argued that an intermediary could be required to remove content under Section 79(3)(b) only pursuant to a court order or a notification issued by the appropriate government or its agency, specifying the unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

It also objected to the demand for withholding three accounts in their entirety, describing it as grossly disproportionate to the grievance raised in the reports.

The notice gave the Delhi Police seven days to withdraw the reports or disclaim them, furnish the complaint and authority under which they were submitted, and confirm that no further takedown requests would be made in the matter. X was separately requested not to act on the reports pending their withdrawal or adjudication.

IFF had subsequently announced that it was approaching the Delhi High Court after receiving no official denial or withdrawal of the takedown requests from the Delhi Police.

It also said that it had written to the RSS but received no response. SFLC, meanwhile, had attempted to contact the Delhi Police using the email address mentioned in the reports, but the communication reportedly bounced back.

Case Title: Internet Freedom Foundation and Another vs UOI and Others

Hearing Date: November 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Tags: