Delhi HC: X Reveals Fake Takedown Notices to IFF, SFLC, Petitions Closed

• The Delhi High Court disposed of petitions from IFF and SFLC after X confirmed takedown notices were fake.
• X's internal investigation revealed an impostor sent notices, prompting X to file a complaint with Delhi Police.
• The fraudulent notices targeted 38 posts and three X accounts, citing defamation under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 356.
• IFF argued the notices lacked proper legal authority and violated free speech principles under Article 19(1)(a).
• The court granted IFF and SFLC liberty to return if X takes any future action based on the notices.

This incident underscores the critical vulnerability of social media platforms to fraudulent takedown requests, particularly those masquerading as official law enforcement directives.

The Delhi High Court recently closed petitions filed by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) after the social media platform X revealed that two takedown notices, purportedly from the Delhi Police, were actually sent by an impostor. X informed the court that its internal investigation concluded the email account used to dispatch these notices was fraudulent. Consequently, X has initiated a complaint with the Delhi Police to investigate the matter further and stated it would not act on the notices at this juncture.

The petitions were originally filed after X forwarded two reports to IFF and SFLC. These reports, seemingly from the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, demanded the removal of specific content. The first report, dated October 31, sought the deletion of one post published by IFF on October 30 and another by SFLC. A subsequent report, dated November 2, escalated the demands, requesting the removal of 37 posts and the complete withholding of three X accounts: @internetfreedom (IFF), @SFLCin (SFLC), and @geoblockedindia. The court disposed of the petitions, but granted IFF and SFLC the right to return to court if any action is taken against their accounts or posts in the future.

The fraudulent takedown notices alleged that the targeted posts defamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came into effect on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code of 1860. They also invoked Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, in conjunction with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. IFF and SFLC, represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal and Advocate Abhik Chimni, contended that their posts merely reproduced and commented on a legal notice previously sent to IFF, asserting that this constituted protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Prior to approaching the Delhi High Court, IFF had issued a legal notice to both the Delhi Police and X on November 3. In this notice, IFF argued that defamation under BNS Section 356 is a non-cognizable offense, meaning police cannot investigate without a magistrate's order, and that cognizance could only be taken upon a complaint from the aggrieved party. IFF highlighted that the reports lacked any disclosure of a complaint, FIR, magistrate's order, or court order, despite one report referencing the enforcement of a court order. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India* (2015), IFF maintained that an intermediary could only be compelled to remove content under Section 79(3)(b) through a court order or a specific government notification identifying unlawful acts related to Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, IFF deemed the demand to withhold entire accounts as grossly disproportionate to the alleged grievance.

This incident underscores the critical vulnerability of social media platforms to fraudulent takedown requests, particularly those masquerading as official law enforcement directives. X's internal investigation and subsequent complaint to the Delhi Police highlight the necessity for rigorous verification processes before platforms act on such demands. The Delhi High Court's disposal of the petitions, while conditional, reinforces the principle that platforms must exercise due diligence and that content creators have avenues to challenge unverified removal requests.

The case also emphasizes the importance of legal organizations like the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Center in defending digital rights and free speech. Their proactive legal challenge, grounded in established legal precedents such as *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*, serves as a crucial check against potential overreach or misuse of content moderation powers. The court's decision to allow IFF and SFLC to re-approach if action is taken provides an essential safeguard, ensuring accountability and protecting online expression against fraudulent takedown attempts.

This development underscores the critical need for social media platforms and legal practitioners to rigorously verify the authenticity of takedown notices, particularly those purportedly from law enforcement, to avoid acting on fraudulent requests. Lawyers advising clients on content moderation or free speech issues should note the precedent set by X's internal investigation and the court's disposal, reinforcing the due diligence required before content removal and the potential for legal challenge against unverified demands, especially under new statutes like the BNS.

Source: Original reporting via Salil Tiwari