Delhi Police notices to X seek removal of IFF and SFLC.in accounts, citing criminal defamation
IFF says two notices of 31 October and 2 November 2026 cite criminal defamation and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules. Who may order a takedown under Sections 69A and 79(3)(b), and what Shreya Singhal and Subramanian Swamy held.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said on 3 November 2026 that Delhi Police has sent X two notices seeking removal of posts and the entire accounts of IFF, SFLC.in and the operator of GeoBlockedIndia. The notices, issued by the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 31 October and 2 November 2026, allege defamation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
IFF says X sent it copies of both notices on the morning of 3 November. The first, filed at 8.06 pm on 31 October, named two posts made on 30 October by IFF and SFLC.in. The second, filed at 8.51 am on 2 November, listed 40 URLs: 37 posts, which include content by 16 other users, and the three accounts.
As IFF describes it, the second notice cites Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 and Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It says that under those provisions "lawful notices require action within 3 hours."
IFF’s statement of 3 November 2026 records no response from Delhi Police or the RSS. IFF says X forwarded the notices to it in the interest of transparency, and that X's emails did not show whether any post or account has been withheld.
How the dispute began
IFF says the dispute began on 29 October 2026, when IFF, SFLC.in and the operator of GeoBlockedIndia received a two-page legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked them to stop opposing government blocking directions, documenting restricted content and publishing details of geo-blocked posts.
The notice also sought written confirmation within seven days that the organisations would comply. It was signed by an unnamed authorised signatory, and IFF says several RSS office-bearers later questioned its authenticity in posts on X.
On 30 October 2026, IFF published the notice and its reply, and wrote to the RSS at its official address to ask whether the organisation had authorised it. IFF alleges that the police notices seek to restrict the very posts through which it documented and answered the legal notice.
Two routes to a takedown
The Information Technology Act, 2000 has two provisions that bear on removing online content. Section 69A is a power to block public access to information. Section 79 protects platforms from liability for what users post, on conditions.
Under Section 69A(1), the Central Government, or an officer it specially authorises, may direct an intermediary to block information. The ground must be one of those listed: sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to a related cognisable offence. Reasons must be recorded in writing.
The Blocking Rules, 2009 add a process. A designated officer, a committee of government officials and a review committee are involved, and the originator and intermediary are to be heard where identified. An emergency interim direction is allowed, and an intermediary that fails to comply faces up to seven years in prison under Section 69A(3).
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A and the 2009 Rules. It pointed to a narrowly drawn power, grounds tied to Article 19(2), written reasons that can be challenged in a writ petition, and a hearing for the originator and intermediary.
What Section 79(3)(b) does and does not do
Section 79(1) shields an intermediary from liability for third-party information, provided it observes due diligence. Under Section 79(3)(b), that protection is lost if the intermediary, on receiving actual knowledge or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the material.
In Shreya Singhal, the Court read the clause down. Actual knowledge, it held, means a court order, or a notification by the appropriate Government or its agency, and either must relate to the subjects in Article 19(2). Otherwise, the Court said, platforms would have to judge millions of requests themselves.
Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 puts this into operation. Its list of unlawful information, which tracks Article 19(2), includes defamation. An amendment notified on 22 October 2025, in force from 15 November 2025, requires the notice to come from an officer of at least Joint Secretary rank or, for police, Deputy Inspector General rank, with reasons.
As IFF describes them, the notices rely on Rule 3(1)(d) and Section 79(3)(b) and do not mention Section 69A. IFF's statement points to the Supreme Court's reading down of Section 79(3)(b). No court has yet ruled on the notices.
Criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS
Section 356 of the BNS replaced Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It defines defamation and lists exceptions, which work as defences. They include a true imputation made for the public good, and a good-faith opinion on the conduct of a public servant in his public functions or on any public question.
IFF says its posts fall within those exceptions, which it describes as covering truth published for public good and opinion on public conduct and matters of public interest. In the IPC provision that Section 356 carries forward, whether an imputation is for the public good is stated to be a question of fact.
Section 356(2) prescribes simple imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, both, or community service.
On procedure, IFF says the offence is non-cognisable and bailable. It cites Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, under which a court takes cognisance of criminal defamation only on a complaint by the aggrieved person. It also cites Section 174 of the BNSS, on non-cognisable offences.
Section 174 carries forward Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whose sub-section (2) barred police from investigating a non-cognisable case without a Magistrate's order. IFF says the notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no Magistrate's order, and that the court order details in both notices were left blank.
The Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221. It sustained Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and Section 199 of the CrPC, holding that protection of reputation is a fundamental right and that criminal defamation is not a disproportionate restriction on speech.
Article 19 and proportionality
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on stated grounds, which include defamation. M.P. Jain, in Indian Constitutional Law, notes that defamation is both a crime and a tort, and that a restriction outside the grounds in Article 19(2) cannot stand.
Lawrence Liang, in the chapter on free speech in The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, reads Shreya Singhal as applying a standard close to strict scrutiny to speech restrictions. He notes that the judgment also carried speech doctrine into the internet age.
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Court held that speech over the internet is protected by Article 19(1)(a), and that restrictions must meet the test of proportionality. That test asks whether the measure serves a legitimate goal and whether a less restrictive alternative exists.
IFF argues that seeking removal of entire organisational accounts over a limited number of posts is disproportionate.
What IFF and SFLC.in are asking for
IFF has demanded that Delhi Police withdraw both notices and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and IFF. It has also sought disclosure of the complaint on which the Special Commissioner acted, the authority under which the requests were filed, and whether a Magistrate issued an order under Section 174 of the BNSS.
IFF has urged X not to act on the notices and to give affected users the full requests and legal grounds before withholding any content. It has also called on the RSS to say publicly whether it authorised the legal notice or filed any police complaint.
SFLC.in said the requests raise concerns about their legal basis, necessity and proportionality, including the inclusion of its handles and the absence of any disclosed court orders. It said it believes the requests are "unlawful and disproportionate" and asked for their immediate withdrawal.
IFF says it assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or posts withheld in India in the three weeks before the first notice. It says SFLC.in's Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first 29 days of October, and that GeoBlockedIndia keeps records of blocking orders disclosed by platforms.
IFF has said it will go to court if the notices stand. In its words, "If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court." As of that statement, dated 3 November 2026, no petition had been filed.