SFLC.in

#Breaking X (formerly Twitter) tells the Delhi High Court that the notices to block the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) accounts were issued by an "imposter" and not the Delhi Police. X says it has already filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the imposter, and IFF and SFLC's accounts will not be taken down. @internetfreedom @SFLCin

A step-by-step account of SFLC.in’s response to the three takedown notices issued against its X account and posts. 1. Initial concerns regarding authenticity: Ordinarily, X's takedown notifications identify the law enforcement agency and the legal basis, but in our case the requesting authority was referred to as “Indian Police” and the legal basis as “Indian law." 2. Verification of email authenticity: We examined the underlying email header data to identify the originating IP address. 3. Seeking clarification from X: We wrote to X Corp and the platform’s support team seeking details of the law enforcement agency that had submitted the request, the statutory provisions invoked, and a copy of the underlying order or request. 4. Official Email to Delhi Police: We sent an email to the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, at the email address mentioned in the takedown notices, as well as the email addresses of other high-ranking officers, seeking clarification on whether Delhi Police has issued these orders. 5. Undelivered emails: Two of the three emails, including the one mentioned in the takedown orders, bounced back, stating that the “user doesn’t exist.” 6. Verification of X's takedown submission mechanisms: To further examine the authenticity of the two takedown requests, SFLC.in investigated the mechanisms available for submitting takedown requests to X and found that the Law Enforcement Request (LER) form lacks an authentication process to verify the identity of the sending authority. 7. Official Email Seeking clarification from X on the submission mechanism: We further wrote to X Corp seeking confirmation on whether the LER form was used to submit the takedown request against SFLC.in. 8. Follow-up verification of X's LER form: Following our letter, X added the authentication process to the form. 9. Verification of the authority of the issuing officer: As per F. No. B/69/2025-Home-II/1246-1254, issued by the Home Department on 2 June 2026, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, who is identified as the issuing authority in the notices received by SFLC.in, is not among the officers authorised to issue takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 10. Formal complaint to the IFSO Unit: We submitted a formal complaint to the IFSO Unit of the Delhi Police to seek clarification on whether the takedown orders were issued by them. 11. Discrepancy in the Email Address Listed on the Delhi Police Website: The Delhi Police has corrected the email ID, which was earlier flagged as incorrect by SFLC.in. This discrepancy further raises questions about the authenticity of the contact details provided in the notice and the authority from which it originated. Read the detailed chronology of events and the steps SFLC.in has taken to establish the authenticity and verify the origin of the takedown notices here: sflc.in/sflc-in-statement-re… @nit_set @neha_aisa @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @JohnBrittas @svaradarajan @tajmahalfoxtrot @AbhinandanSekhr @ravish_journo @VTankha @derekobrienmp @cpimlliberation @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @MaktoobMedia @AroonDeep @SushantSin @tajmahalfoxtrot @seemay @dhanyarajendran @AbhinandanSekhr @MnshaP @MaktoobMedia @abhijeet_dipke @ravish_journo @whattalawyer @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @RSF_inter @IFEX @IndexCensorship @medianama @mediadefence @witnessorg @jencyjac @paranjoygt @baxiabhishek @seemay @NasirHussainINC @zoo_bear @free_thinker @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @ManishSharmaIYC @svaradarajan @PankajPachauri @clifroz @AnuradhaBhasin_