Delhi High Court: X Confirms Imposter Sent IFF, SFLC Takedown Requests

• Social media platform X informed the Delhi High Court that notices to block IFF and SFLC accounts were sent by an imposter, not Delhi Police.
• X conducted an internal investigation, confirmed the deception, and filed a complaint with Delhi Police regarding the fraudulent activity.
• Justice Amit Mahajan disposed of the petitions filed by IFF and SFLC after X's submission that the handles would not be taken down.
• The fraudulent notices alleged defamation against the RSS and invoked Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pertaining to criminal defamation.
• IFF and SFLC had challenged the notices, arguing that criminal defamation is a non-cognisable offense requiring a Magistrate's order for police investigation.

The incident underscores the critical need for social media platforms to rigorously verify the authenticity of official takedown requests, especially when they purport to originate from law enforcement agencies.

Social media platform X recently informed the Delhi High Court that official-looking notices, which had sought the blocking of accounts belonging to the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), were in fact sent by an imposter. The platform clarified that the Delhi Police was not the true originator of these requests. This significant revelation was made before Justice Amit Mahajan during a hearing concerning petitions filed by both IFF and SFLC, which challenged the legitimacy of the notices purportedly issued by the Delhi Police.

Counsel representing X assured the court that the social media handles of IFF and SFLC would not be removed from the platform. The company confirmed that an internal investigation had been conducted, which definitively identified the sender as an imposter. Following this discovery, X has initiated a formal complaint with the Delhi Police regarding the fraudulent activity. In light of these submissions, Justice Amit Mahajan proceeded to dispose of the petitions brought forward by IFF and SFLC.

The imposter's notices contained specific allegations and demands. One notice claimed that the organizations had published defamatory content targeting the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This particular notice invoked Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a legal provision that addresses criminal defamation. A second, more extensive notice, targeted a total of 40 URLs, which included 37 individual posts.

Beyond individual posts, this second notice also sought the complete removal of the X accounts belonging to three distinct entities: IFF, SFLC, and 'Geo Blocked in India'. Furthermore, it demanded the deletion of posts made by 16 other users who had commented on the controversy surrounding the alleged defamatory content. The breadth of these fraudulent requests highlights a sophisticated attempt to suppress online discourse.

IFF and SFLC had vigorously contested the legality of these notices, even before the imposter's identity was revealed. Their primary argument centered on the nature of criminal defamation, which is classified as a non-cognisable offense under Indian law. This classification is crucial because it dictates that the police cannot initiate an investigation into such an offense without first obtaining a specific order from a Magistrate.

The organizations contended that, in the absence of a Magistrate's order, any police action, including seeking the removal of online content, would be unlawful. This legal stance underscores a fundamental principle regarding due process and the limits of police authority in cases involving non-cognisable offenses. The incident underscores the critical need for social media platforms to rigorously verify the authenticity of official takedown requests, especially when they purport to originate from law enforcement agencies.

This case brings to the forefront critical questions about the security protocols of social media platforms and the potential for misuse of official channels. The fact that an imposter could successfully mimic official Delhi Police requests to demand content removal raises significant concerns about the vulnerability of online speech to malicious actors. It emphasizes the ongoing challenge platforms face in distinguishing genuine legal demands from fraudulent ones, particularly when such demands target civil society organizations.

Moreover, the legal arguments put forth by IFF and SFLC regarding non-cognisable offenses provide an important precedent for challenging potentially unlawful content blocking actions. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the constant vigilance required to protect freedom of expression online and to ensure that legal processes are not exploited for ulterior motives.

This case underscores the critical importance for legal practitioners and compliance officers to verify the authenticity of official takedown requests on social media platforms, as fraudulent requests can lead to wrongful content removal. It also highlights the ongoing scrutiny of police powers regarding non-cognisable offenses like criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS, providing a precedent for challenging potentially unlawful content blocking actions.

Source: Based on reports from the Delhi High Court.