NEW DELHI, November 4, 2026: Digital rights organisations Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Center India (SFLC.in) say Delhi Police has asked social media platform X to remove their accounts and a set of posts linked to a dispute over a purported legal notice issued in the name of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The organisations say the police requests also cover the account of GeoBlockedIndia, which documents government content-blocking orders, and posts by other users who commented on the controversy. The groups have challenged the requests as disproportionate and say they will approach a court if the notices are not withdrawn.
The claims are based on notifications and copies of reports that IFF says X forwarded to it. Reuters reported that it could not independently verify the police orders. X, the RSS and Delhi Police did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment, and the organisations’ accounts remained active at the time of the report. The allegations therefore remain attributed to the groups; no court has ruled on the legality of the requests.
IFF says the matter began on October 29, when the foundation, SFLC.in and the operator of GeoBlockedIndia received a two-page legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS. According to the organisations, the notice asked them to stop opposing government blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content and stop publishing details of geo-blocked posts. It was signed by an unnamed authorised signatory.
The organisations say several RSS office-bearers later stated on X that the notice was not authentic. IFF says it wrote to the RSS at its official address seeking confirmation, published the notice and its response on October 30, and continued to document the issue. The authenticity of the private notice has not been established in the material reviewed for this report.
IFF says Delhi Police sent its first illegal-content report to X on October 31, identifying posts by IFF and SFLC.in and alleging that they were defamatory towards the RSS under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The report, as described by the foundation, marked defamation and other categories but left fields relating to a court order blank.
A second report was submitted on November 2, according to IFF. It listed 40 links, including 37 individual posts and the full accounts of IFF, SFLC.in and GeoBlockedIndia. The organisation says the report also sought action against posts by 16 other users, including journalists, political figures and people who had commented on the dispute.
X forwarded the reports to IFF on November 3, the organisations said. The notifications gave the groups an opportunity to seek legal advice and challenge the requests. The organisations say the notices did not disclose a court order or a complaint from the person or organisation allegedly defamed. The police have not publicly confirmed the details of the requests in the reporting reviewed.
Scroll reported the sequence using the screenshots and statements published by IFF. Moneycontrol and Newslaundry also reported the requests and the groups’ objections. The accounts remained accessible when the reports were published, and there was no confirmed indication that X had complied with the requests.
The notices reportedly cite Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with criminal defamation, alongside provisions of the Information Technology Rules and the Information Technology Act. The groups argue that the police have used a content-removal process to act on a private legal notice whose authenticity they say remains unresolved.
IFF says criminal defamation is a non-cognisable offence and argues that police cannot investigate it without an order from a magistrate. It also says the notices do not identify a complaint by the RSS or a court direction authorising the removal requests. These are the organisations’ legal arguments. Whether the requests satisfy the requirements of the relevant laws has not been decided by a court.
The scope of the requests is another concern. A demand to remove particular posts is different from a request to suspend an entire account. An account can contain years of material unrelated to the disputed posts, including public-interest reporting, legal commentary and records of government decisions. The groups argue that seeking account-level removal goes beyond the specific content identified in the notices.
SFLC.in has questioned the legal basis, necessity and proportionality of the requests, particularly the inclusion of entire accounts and the absence of disclosed court orders. IFF says the posts at issue discuss a legal notice received by the organisations and their response to it. The groups contend that documenting restrictions and challenging them through the courts is a legitimate part of their work.
The case also raises a practical question about transparency. Platforms such as X notify users when they receive certain government requests, allowing account holders to understand the claimed legal basis and decide whether to challenge the action. But a notice sent to a platform can still affect a user’s speech even before a court has considered the dispute. The time allowed for a response, the information disclosed and the scope of the requested restriction can determine whether a challenge is meaningful.
India’s online-content framework allows authorities to seek removal or restriction of material considered unlawful. The government has said that platform directions are intended to address illegal or misleading content while respecting lawful expression. That general position does not resolve the specific questions raised by IFF and SFLC.in, and no official response from Delhi Police or the RSS was available in the reports reviewed.
The organisations’ work gives the dispute a wider significance. IFF and SFLC.in monitor content restrictions, provide legal assistance and publish information about government blocking orders. GeoBlockedIndia also maintains a record of restrictions disclosed by platforms. If the entire accounts were removed, the organisations say, the effect would extend beyond the posts named in the reports to their public record of censorship and legal challenges.
That argument does not determine whether the disputed posts are lawful or defamatory. Those questions would require examination of the actual statements, the legal notice, any complaint and the applicable defences. The central procedural issue is whether an account-level takedown request can be made on the basis described by the groups, and whether the platform and affected users have enough information to challenge it.
IFF has asked Delhi Police to withdraw the reports and has called on the RSS to clarify whether it authorised the private legal notice or any police complaint. SFLC.in has separately demanded disclosure of the legal basis for the requests. Both organisations say they will challenge the notices in court if they are not withdrawn.
For now, there is no reported court order directing X to remove the accounts and no confirmation that the platform has acted on the police requests. The next steps will depend on whether Delhi Police responds, whether the RSS clarifies its position and whether the organisations file a legal challenge. Any future court proceedings could examine both the scope of the police powers invoked and the safeguards available to people whose posts or accounts are targeted.
The distinction between an allegation and a judicial finding is important. The police requests are described by the organisations and reported by multiple newsrooms, but Reuters said it could not independently verify the orders. The dispute is significant because it concerns the use of platform takedown procedures against groups that document government restrictions, not because the legal questions have already been settled.
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment. Comments are published after moderation.