Background
SFLC.in on October 29th received a legal notice from an individual purportedly acting on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), raising objections to the organisation’s work documenting online censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression. The notice demanded that SFLC.in and other civil society organisations stop their work and public criticism of government directions concerning online content restrictions.
Following SFLC.in’s public response to the notice, X informed the organisation that it had received takedown requests purportedly submitted by the Delhi Police. These requests targeted SFLC.in’s X account and four posts concerning the legal notice and the organisation’s efforts to document online censorship. Find SFLC.in Statement here.
The timeline of events is set out below. We will continue to update this timeline as further developments occur.
| Date | Event |
| 29 October 2026 | SFLC.in, Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and @geoblockedindia received a legal notice from an individual identifying himself as Advocate Gaurav Tiwari, purportedly acting on behalf of the RSS. The notice objected to the organisations’ work documenting online censorship and Free Speech Tracker. The notice demanded the organisations to stop such work and comply within seven days. |
| 30 October 2026 | SFLC.in published a post on X reporting the receipt and contents of the legal notice and raising concerns about its authenticity.
https://x.com/SFLCin/status/2116135727969005900 |
| 1 November 2026 | SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindia received another communication from the individual claiming to represent the RSS. It stated that the matter had been transferred to the RSS’s legal and advocacy wing, Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), and referred to complaints filed in different States and requests for blocking the organisations’ social media accounts. |
| 1 November 2026 | X informed SFLC.in that it had received a request from the “Indian Police” concerning content published by SFLC.in on 30th October. The posts were about the legal notice received by SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindia from an individual purportedly representing the RSS, the demands made against these organisations, and concerns regarding the notice’s authenticity.
However, it did not identify the specific police authority or provide the underlying request. Email from X of takedown request 1K-9 Mail_ X Receipt of Correspondence (1) |
| 3 November 2026 | X’ sent SFLC.in two communications forwarding copies of the Delhi Police takedown requests, LD-321926 and LD-322956.
Takedown request with reference number LD-321926 was purportedly submitted to X by Mr. Hargobinder Singh Dhaliwal, Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police. It listed 2 URLs, including one SFLC.in post and one IFF post, and alleged defamation under Section 356 of the BNS. A second takedown request bearing reference LD-322956 was purportedly submitted to X by the same reporting officer. It listed 42 URLs, including the entire X account URLs of SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindia. It invoked Section 356 of the BNS and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. The posts were about the legal notice received by SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindia from an individual purportedly representing the RSS, the demands made against these organisations, and concerns regarding the notice’s authenticity. They also documented the organisations’ response to the notice and their work on online censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression. In total the requests included SFLC.in’s X account and five individual posts. 1. https://x.com/SFLCinhttps://x.com/SFLCin/ 2.https://x.com/SFLCin/status/2116135727969005900 3. https://x.com/SFLCin/status/2116135732389781933 4. https://x.com/SFLCin/status/2116135736709890447 5. https://x.com/SFLCin/status/2116135740791013660 Email 1_3rd November Email from X of Takedown Request 3Email 2_3rd November |
| 4 November 2026 | SFLC.in emailed the address attributed to the reporting officer in the takedown requests. The email bounced back with an error stating that the user did not exist, although the same email address was listed on the official Delhi Police website.
|
| 4 November 2026 |
SFLC.in tested the verification mechanism of X’s Law Enforcement Request form. While the Legal Request Portal requires submitting authorities to verify their official email addresses through an authentication link, the same verification step appeared to be absent from the Law Enforcement Request form. SFLC.in submitted a test takedown request against one of its own posts using a fictitious email address. X nevertheless registered the request against the account, raising concerns about the verification of identities and authority of individuals submitting such requests. SFLC.in contacted X officials to verify the authenticity of the requests and sought clarification from X regarding the channels through which the requests were submitted, its verification procedures for requests received through the Legal Request Portal, whether the requests were actually submitted by the identified police officers, and whether X received any supporting court orders or directions.
The flaw had been fixed, when we checked at 3.15 PM
|
