X Says Impostor, Not Delhi Police, Submitted Takedown Notices Targeting Indian Rights Groups

X told the Delhi High Court on Friday that its internal investigation found that takedown notices targeting Indian digital-rights groups were submitted by an impostor posing as the Delhi Police, a disclosure that shifts attention from the notices themselves to how platform enforcement tools are being verified.

The targets were the Software Freedom Law Center, India, known as SFLC.in, the Internet Freedom Foundation, or IFF, and the X account @geoblockedindia. All three track online censorship, blocked content or account restrictions in India, making the attempted takedowns especially significant.

According to public statements from SFLC.in and IFF, the episode began with a two-page legal notice dated Oct. 29, 2026, that purported to be issued on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, and demanded that the groups stop documenting government blocking and takedown orders. The groups said that on Oct. 31 and Nov. 2, separate “Illegal Content Report” notices were then submitted to X naming the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police. Both groups said X forwarded copies of those reports to them on Nov. 3.

The first report, identified by SFLC.in and IFF as LD-321926, named two URLs and alleged defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, according to the groups’ statements. The second, referenced as LD-322956, targeted a broader set of posts and accounts. SFLC.in said it listed 42 URLs, while IFF said it listed 40 URLs, including 37 posts and three accounts. Both groups said the second notice included the full X account URLs of SFLC.in, IFF’s account @internetfreedom and @geoblockedindia.

SFLC.in said the reports appeared irregular on their face. In a public statement, it said court-order fields were left blank, the notices mixed defamation claims with intermediary rules, and emails sent to the Delhi Police address listed in the reports bounced back. SFLC.in also said it tested X’s law-enforcement request form and found that a test request using a fictitious email address was accepted, which it presented as a possible verification gap.

IFF framed the matter as more than a dispute over specific posts. “A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship,” the group said in its public statement.

SFLC.in and IFF later filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, seeking relief over the notices or clarification about them. At Friday’s hearing, X’s counsel told the court that the company had investigated the submissions and concluded they did not come from the Delhi Police. “We have done an internal investigation and it turn out this was an imposter. We have filed a complaint with Delhi Police,” X’s lawyer said, according to reporting on the hearing by The Wire and an update from SFLC.in.

According to that hearing coverage, X also said it was unlikely to act on the notices at this stage. The court recorded X’s statement and disposed of the petitions, while allowing the petitioners to return if action is later taken.

The episode lands as India’s online takedown system has become faster and more tightly regulated. Research cited by the groups says amendments in 2025 narrowed who can issue certain government takedown intimations, and changes effective in 2026 shortened some compliance timelines to as little as three hours. Against that backdrop, the case raises a practical question for platforms operating in India: how they authenticate urgent law-enforcement-style requests before content or accounts are restricted.