“Notices are not sent by the Delhi Police,” X Corp told the Delhi High Court, saying the takedown notices that sought the blocking of the X accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation and SFLC were sent by an impostor. The Court then disposed of the two digital rights groups’ petitions.
New Delhi: Two digital rights organisations, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and SFLC, saw their petitions against takedown notices disposed of by the Delhi High Court on Friday, November 6, after X Corp (formerly Twitter) informed the Court that the notices seeking the removal of their accounts on X had been sent by an impostor posing as the Delhi Police and that no action had been taken on them [Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter].
The matter was heard by Justice Amit Mahajan.
X Corp’s statement to the Court
Counsel for X Corp said the platform had carried out an internal investigation, which revealed that the notices had been sent by someone impersonating the Delhi Police. The counsel told the Court:
“We did not action it. Notices are not sent by the Delhi Police. We have filed a complaint with the Delhi Police last night to find the impostor.”
X Corp’s counsel added that no action had been taken against the accounts of IFF and SFLC on the basis of the notices.
What the two groups had asked for
IFF and SFLC, two organisations working on digital rights and technology law, had approached the High Court against notices which sought the blocking of their X handles. According to the petitioners, the notices were issued purportedly in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, and their genuineness was in doubt.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for both organisations, told the Court that the petitioners had written to the authority asking it to confirm whether the notices were genuine, but had received no confirmation. “If it is genuine then it is most troubling,” he submitted.
The outcome
Taking note of the stand of X Corp, Justice Amit Mahajan disposed of both petitions. The identity of the person who sent the notices is now the subject of the complaint lodged by X Corp with the Delhi Police, and the Court has not examined that question on merits.
Why the hearing matters
The episode exposes a gap in the content takedown system. Platforms receive a large volume of blocking requests from police and government agencies, and the account holder often has no way to verify whether a notice that cites a senior police officer is real. A forged notice in the name of a law enforcement agency could, if acted upon, silence an account without any lawful order.
The disposal of the petitions resolves the immediate threat to the two accounts, but the larger question of how platforms authenticate government takedown requests, and how users can quickly confirm them, remains open for regulators and courts.
Case Title: Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. and connected petition by SFLC (case title and number to be verified)
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Hearing: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal for IFF and SFLC; counsel for X Corp
