The Delhi police has issued two notices to social media platform X, seeking the removal of the accounts of digital rights organisations Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) apart from the operator of GeoBlockedIndia, over allegations of defamation against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
IFF is a digital rights advocacy organisation that defends against threats to civil liberties and democracy in India, and SFLC is a donor-supported legal services and policy organisation founded in 2010 that protects digital freedom, privacy and civil liberties in India.
The IFF on Tuesday, November 3, said it would approach the court if the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, which also seek removal of 37 posts, including content published by 16 other users.
IFF said it received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of November 3. The notices were filed by the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, on October 31 and November 2, 2026.
According to IFF, the first notice was submitted to X on October 31 at 8.06 pm. It identified two posts published by IFF and SFLC on October 30 concerning a legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS.
The Delhi Police reportedly described the posts as “defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023” and sought their removal or withholding.
The second notice was submitted on November 2 at 8.51 am and listed 40 URLs. These included 37 individual posts and the entire X accounts of IFF, SFLC and GeoBlockedIndia.
The provisions cited in the Delhi Police notices relate to criminal defamation and the removal of unlawful online content.
The stated reason in the second notice read: “The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours.”
Section 356 of the BNS deals with criminal defamation and prescribes punishment for statements made with the intention of harming a person’s reputation. Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules lays down the procedure for intermediaries, including social media platforms, to remove or disable access to unlawful content following legally recognised government or court directions. Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act deals with the conditions under which intermediaries may lose their legal protection for third-party content if they fail to act upon legally valid notices.
The dispute reportedly began on October 29, when IFF, SFLC and the operator of GeoBlockedIndia received a two-page legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS. The notice asked the organisations to stop opposing government blocking directions, documenting restricted content and publishing details of geo-blocked posts.
It also reportedly sought written confirmation within seven days that the organisations would comply with the demands.
The notice was signed by an unnamed ‘Authorised Signatory’. IFF said several RSS office-bearers subsequently questioned its authenticity in posts on X.
On October 30, IFF published the legal notice and its response, stating that it had written to the RSS at its official address seeking clarification on whether the organisation had authorised the communication.
The foundation alleged that the subsequent police notices sought to restrict the very posts through which the organisations had documented and responded to the legal notice.
Explaining its legal objections, IFF said criminal defamation under Section 356 of the BNS is a non-cognisable and bailable offence. It cited Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which states that a court can take cognisance of criminal defamation only upon a complaint by the aggrieved person.
It further referred to Section 174 of the BNSS, arguing that the police cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without an order from a Magistrate.
IFF said the notices did not disclose any complaint by the RSS or an order from a Magistrate authorising an investigation. IFF said that the court order details in both notices had been left blank.
The organisation also cited a Supreme Court judgement, arguing that the legal safeguards governing criminal defamation require the issue to be determined by a court after hearing the concerned parties.
On the question of online content restrictions, IFF referred to another Supreme Court judgement which read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to clarify the circumstances in which an intermediary could be considered to have actual knowledge of unlawful content.
It also cited another judgement arguing that restrictions on speech must satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality and should constitute the least restrictive measure available.
IFF contended that seeking the removal of entire organisational accounts over a limited number of posts was disproportionate. It said the notices also covered 16 other users whose posts, according to the foundation, commented on the legal notice or the controversy surrounding it.
The organisation said the posts in question reproduced a legal notice received by it, criticised its contents and communicated its decision to continue its work.
“A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it and that is not defamation of the sender,” IFF said in its statement.
It also maintained that the posts were protected under the exceptions to Section 356(1) of the BNS, which cover certain statements concerning truth published for public good and opinions on public conduct and matters of public interest.
IFF further alleged that the notices could affect the work of organisations documenting internet censorship and assisting users whose accounts or posts are restricted in India.
Citing its recent work, the foundation said it had assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India in the three weeks preceding the first notice. It also said SFLC’s Free Speech Tracker had recorded approximately 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions during the first 29 days of October.
IFF said GeoBlockedIndia maintains records of blocking orders disclosed by online platforms.
The foundation has demanded that the Delhi Police withdraw both notices, and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and IFF.
It has also sought disclosure of the complaint on the basis of which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed and whether a Magistrate had issued an order under Section 174 of the BNSS.
IFF has urged X not to act on the notices and to provide affected users with the full requests and legal grounds before withholding any content. It has also called on the RSS to publicly clarify whether it authorised the legal notices or filed any police complaints in the matter.
The organisation said X forwarded the two police notices to it on November 3 at 8.47 am and 10.03 am, respectively, stating that the disclosures were being made “in the interest of transparency” and that IFF could seek legal counsel and challenge the requests in court.
IFF added that the emails from X did not indicate whether the platform had acted on the takedown requests.
“If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court,” the organisation said, adding that it would continue documenting blocking orders and providing legal assistance to users affected by content restrictions in India.
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.