Delhi Police Takedown Notices Challenged in High Court Over Legal Validity
Delhi Police Takedown Notices Challenged in High Court Over Legal Validity
Two prominent digital rights organizations have initiated legal proceedings in the Delhi High Court to challenge a series of content removal orders attributed to Delhi Police. The petitions argue that the notices lack mandatory judicial authorization and fail to meet statutory requirements under Indian law, raising concerns about the verification processes used by social media platforms.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC.in) have filed separate petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging the authenticity and legality of takedown notices issued in the name of Delhi Police. The legal challenge was initiated after both organizations identified significant discrepancies regarding the origin of the orders and the absence of mandatory judicial authorization.
The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for hearing on November 6. The petitions address a series of digital enforcement actions forwarded by the social media platform X, which claimed to be acting on behalf of law enforcement authorities. Both groups argue that the notices lack the legal foundation required under Indian law and highlight systemic vulnerabilities in how such orders are transmitted and verified.
IFF served a legal notice to the Delhi Police after X forwarded two "Illegal Content Reports" filed in the name of the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime). The reports, bearing Reference No. LD-321926 dated October 31 and Reference No. LD-322956 dated November 2, demanded the removal of content from three accounts within three hours, citing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021.
Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act outlines the conditions under which an intermediary loses its legal immunity for hosted content if it fails to act upon a government notice. However, IFF noted that both notices left the fields for court order details blank, despite one notice ticking the box indicating enforcement of a court order.
In a statement, IFF emphasized that defamation is a non-cognizable offense under Indian law. The organization stated that police cannot investigate defamation without a Magistrate’s order and that cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint by the aggrieved person. "The reports cite no complaint, FIR, Magistrate’s order or court order," IFF said. "Under Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, an intermediary can be required to takedown content only on a court order or a reasoned government notification—not a web form with boxes ticked against 40 URLs and one sentence of reasons."
IFF further argued that determining whether content is defamatory is the exclusive domain of a court after hearing the author, not a police officer directing a platform to act. The organization described the demand to withhold three accounts in full as "grossly disproportionate" and noted that X had initially provided no way to verify the identity of the requester through its Law Enforcement Request form.
SFLC.in raised similar concerns regarding the verification process. In a statement dated November 5, the group reported receiving three takedown communications from X containing copies of the aforementioned notices. SFLC.in attempted to verify the authenticity of the emails sent to [email protected], but the messages bounced because the user "did not exist." The organization noted that while Delhi Police later corrected the email address, the initial failure highlighted potential security gaps.
SFLC.in pointed out that X’s platform initially lacked a mechanism to verify who submitted a request, allowing for the possibility of impersonation. Although X later introduced an email verification code, SFLC.in questioned whether the platform had independently verified the officials before acting on the orders. "Still trying to verify whether these are authentic," SFLC.in posted on social media, asking if X had confirmed that Delhi Police sent the takedown orders and if anyone had checked the provisions of law and authority.
Both organizations have demanded that the Delhi Police withdraw the requests, confirm whether it issued the notices, and disclose the legal basis and any supporting court orders. They have also asked X to acknowledge the gap in its request form verification process. IFF stated that if the Delhi Police fails to respond to their questions, they will approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226, which grants courts the power to issue orders to government entities.
As the Delhi Police has not yet responded to the inquiries from either organization, the petitions proceed on the premise that the notices may be fraudulent or improperly issued. The case underscores ongoing tensions between digital rights advocates and law enforcement agencies regarding the transparency and legal scrutiny of online content moderation.
Y.Torres--CT
