Elon Musk’s X Tells Delhi High Court Takedown Notices Against IFF and SFLC.in Were Fake

Elon Musk-owned social media platform X has informed the Delhi High Court that purported takedown notices targeting digital rights organisations Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Centre India (SFLC.in) were fake and had been sent by an impostor impersonating the Delhi Police. The company said its internal investigation identified the notices as fraudulent and confirmed that it had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police to identify the person responsible.

The November 6 development brings an important turn in a dispute over online censorship, law-enforcement requests and the verification systems used by social media platforms. IFF and SFLC.in had approached the Delhi High Court after receiving notifications from X about requests allegedly submitted by the Delhi Police seeking the removal of their accounts and several posts. The court recorded X’s statement and disposed of the petitions, while allowing the organisations to approach it again if any action is taken against their accounts or content.

X Tells Delhi High Court the Takedown Notices Were Fake

During the November 6 hearing, X’s counsel informed the Delhi High Court that the company had conducted an internal investigation into the purported takedown requests.

According to the company’s submission, the requests had been sent by an impostor posing as the Delhi Police rather than by the actual law-enforcement agency.

X also told the court that it had not acted on the notices and had filed a complaint with the Delhi Police to investigate the impersonation.

The hearing took place before Justice Amit Mahajan. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for IFF and SFLC.in.

After recording X’s statement, the court disposed of the petitions. However, it gave the organisations liberty to approach the court again if X takes any action against their accounts or posts in the future.

This means the immediate dispute over the authenticity of the notices has taken a different direction. Instead of examining the legality of genuine government takedown orders, the issue now concerns alleged impersonation of a law-enforcement authority and the safeguards used by X to verify such requests.

What Were the Fake Takedown Notices About?

The controversy began when IFF and SFLC.in received notifications from X indicating that the platform had received takedown requests purportedly submitted by the Delhi Police.

The first notice was dated October 31, 2026. It reportedly targeted a post by SFLC.in discussing legal notices received by the organisation, IFF and another account, GeoBlockedIndia.

The notice alleged that the post was defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), citing Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

On November 2, another purported notice covered 42 URLs, including accounts and posts belonging to IFF, SFLC.in, GeoBlockedIndia and other users.

The notices reportedly cited several grounds, including hate speech, safety and security, defamation and enforcement of a court order. One of them invoked Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The second request reportedly asked X to take action within three hours.

The organisations questioned the authenticity of the notices because they lacked details normally expected in formal law-enforcement requests. They also raised concerns about the identity and authority of the official named as the issuing officer.

Why IFF and SFLC.in Suspected the Notices Were Fraudulent

The digital rights organisations began independently examining the communications after receiving the notifications.

One of their concerns was that the notices identified the requesting authority as the Indian Police but did not provide sufficient supporting information about the legal basis or underlying orders.

SFLC.in also attempted to verify the email address mentioned in the purported Delhi Police notices.

According to the organisation, emails sent to the listed address bounced back with automated messages indicating that the account did not exist or was unavailable. It also identified a discrepancy between the email address printed on the notices and the address listed on the Delhi Police website.

The organisations further questioned whether the officer identified in the notices was authorised to issue takedown directions under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

They said a Delhi Home Department order dated June 2, 2026, specified the officers authorised to issue such notices, and the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), whose name appeared on the communications, was not among the listed categories.

These concerns prompted IFF and SFLC.in to seek clarification from the Delhi Police and X. When they did not receive confirmation, they approached the High Court.

The subsequent statement by X that the notices were fake has provided an explanation for the irregularities, although the identity of the alleged impersonator remains to be established.

X’s Law-Enforcement Verification System Comes Under Scrutiny

The episode has also drawn attention to how social media companies authenticate government requests.

Before X informed the court of its findings, SFLC.in had examined the platform’s Law Enforcement Request (LER) form and raised concerns about the absence of a mechanism to verify the identity of someone submitting a request.

The organisation said this could potentially allow an individual to impersonate a law-enforcement official using a fictitious or unauthorised email address.

SFLC.in subsequently reported that X had introduced an email verification code in the submission process when it checked the form again.

The development highlights a significant challenge for online platforms. Social media companies receive legal and regulatory requests from authorities across multiple jurisdictions. They must process legitimate requests while preventing fraudulent submissions that could lead to the removal of lawful speech or accounts.

A robust verification process is particularly important when requests seek urgent action against entire accounts or multiple posts.

X’s filing of a complaint with the Delhi Police indicates that the company is treating the incident as an impersonation matter. The outcome of that complaint could help establish how the requests were submitted and whether the platform’s procedures were exploited.

Delhi Police Also Says the Notices Were Not Genuine

The doubts surrounding the notices were not limited to the organisations and X.

According to a report by Scroll, a Delhi Police official also said that the police had not submitted the purported illegal-content report against IFF, SFLC.in and GeoBlockedIndia.

The official reportedly said the request sent to X had originated from a fake email address impersonating an official Delhi Police account.

This is consistent with X’s statement before the High Court that the requests were fraudulent.

The case therefore raises questions beyond the removal of specific social media posts. It highlights the possibility that someone could misuse the identity of a government agency to trigger platform-level content restrictions.

For organisations that monitor online censorship and government takedown requests, verifying the source of a notice is essential before accepting that it represents an official government action.

What Happens Next?

With the High Court disposing of the petitions after recording X’s statement, the immediate proceedings have concluded for now.

However, the matter could return to court if X takes action against the organisations’ accounts or content. The company has said it did not act on the purported notices.

The police complaint filed by X is now an important part of the next stage. Investigators will need to establish who submitted the requests, how the person obtained or used the purported official identity and whether any other accounts or organisations were targeted.

The incident may also encourage platforms to strengthen authentication requirements for law-enforcement submissions, particularly where requests involve urgent restrictions on online content.

The Bigger Picture

The incident demonstrates how weaknesses in digital verification systems can create risks for freedom of expression. A fraudulent request carrying the appearance of government authority can potentially trigger restrictions on accounts, posts and public-interest information if a platform does not adequately authenticate its source.

It also highlights the importance of transparency from both technology companies and government agencies. Platforms need reliable procedures for verifying official requests, while public authorities need accessible channels through which individuals and organisations can confirm whether a communication genuinely originated from them.

Looking Ahead

The immediate legal dispute has been disposed of after X told the Delhi High Court that the takedown notices were fake and that it had filed a police complaint. The next significant development will be the investigation into the alleged impersonation and whether the platform introduces additional safeguards to prevent similar incidents.

For IFF, SFLC.in and other organisations monitoring digital rights, the episode reinforces the need to scrutinise the origin and legal basis of content-removal requests. The case also serves as a reminder that a notification appearing to come from a government agency should not automatically be treated as an authenticated legal direction.