X told the Delhi High Court that an imposter sent requests seeking the removal of the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre, India, accounts, purportedly on behalf of the Delhi Police. The platform said it did not act on the requests and had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police to identify the person behind them.
X’s counsel made the submission before Justice Amit Mahajan while the court was hearing petitions filed by the two organisations. The petitions concerned alleged notices sent to X by a person claiming to be the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police.
According to the submissions recorded during the hearing, the purported notices asked X to remove or withhold certain posts within three hours and to block the organisations’ entire accounts. The notices were linked to posts that allegedly defamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The senior counsel representing the petitioners questioned their authenticity and said they appeared to be legally unsustainable.
X’s lawyer told the court that the platform had not acted on the requests because such notices were not sent by the Delhi Police. “We did not act on it. Notices are not sent by the Delhi Police,” the lawyer submitted, adding that X had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police the previous night to find the imposter.
The petitions referred to purported “illegal content reports” allegedly sent on October 31 and November 2 in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime). The petitioners said the reports did not disclose due authorisation and were not in accordance with the legal requirements under the Information Technology Act.
The case places the authentication of government takedown requests at the centre of the dispute. Platforms receiving demands to restrict content or disable accounts must distinguish between an authorised communication from a public authority and a forged request using an official title. In this matter, X’s submission was that it identified the communications as unauthorised and did not rely on them to remove the accounts.
The episode also illustrates how disputes over online speech can move quickly from platform moderation systems to constitutional and administrative scrutiny. The organisations approached the High Court after receiving information about the purported notices, while X separately reported the alleged impersonation to the police.
The court closed the proceedings on the petitions in view of X’s stand. The Delhi Police complaint filed by X remains the stated next step in identifying the person who allegedly impersonated the police authority and sent the takedown requests.
