X Says Fake Police Order Targeted Free-Speech Groups
A fake police order asking X to block the accounts of two of India’s most prominent free-speech groups was not genuine, the social media company told an Indian court on Friday. The orders had sparked a public outcry days earlier, after the purported content removal requests came to light.
The orders were submitted through X’s online reporting form in the name of a senior Delhi police officer. They sought the removal of the accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC). The orders claimed the two groups had defamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Hindu nationalist group from which Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party emerged.
“It turns out this was somebody playing an impostor, somebody impersonating Delhi police who has sent this,” a lawyer for X told the Delhi High Court. The lawyer said the company had conducted an internal investigation.
Delhi police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
How the fake police order reached X
The purported takedown orders invoked Indian rules that require platforms to act on notices within three hours. X forwarded the orders to the affected users before establishing that they were fake.
The IFF had asked the court to quash the orders, which sparked an uproar on social media this week. Amnesty and India’s main opposition party contested their legality.
The groups also received legal notices last week, purportedly on behalf of the RSS. Those notices demanded that they stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders, according to the petition.
The sequence exposes a gap in how takedown requests are handled. A form that accepts orders in the name of a police officer, with a three-hour deadline, leaves little room for checks before the platform must act. X passed the notices on to the users first and verified them later. By then, the orders had already caused alarm among free-speech advocates.
Why the case matters beyond India
Free-speech activists have repeatedly said that India’s strict content removal regulations are a way to curb dissent in the world’s most populous nation. India, which has more than 1.1 billion internet subscribers, says the directives target unlawful or misleading content and respect lawful expression.
The IFF and the SFLC are not fringe voices. They track and challenge government blocking orders, and they publish records of what the state asks platforms to remove. A takedown of their own accounts would have silenced two of the groups that watch the system most closely.
The case also matters for platforms across the region. X, like other large platforms, runs the same reporting forms in many countries, including Pakistan. A fake order that slips through in Delhi raises a plain question for users everywhere: how does a platform know that a removal demand is real before it acts on it?
Indian courts have handled similar disputes before. A Calcutta court recently passed an order on a Modi-Adani documentary, which shows how often the courts are drawn into fights over online speech in India.
The pressure on free expression is not limited to India. A new report has warned of lawfare against journalists in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s telecom regulator has been registering social media platforms under its own rules. The question of who shapes the algorithms that decide what people see online is now central to public debate in every country where these platforms operate.
What happens next
The Delhi High Court will hear the IFF’s request to quash the orders. Delhi police have yet to respond to the claim that an impostor filed them. Until the court rules, the fake orders stand as a warning: a removal demand that looks official is not always official, and platforms that act first and check later can become a tool for silencing critics.
What did X tell the court?
X told the Delhi High Court that police orders seeking the removal of two free-speech groups’ accounts were fake, filed by an impostor impersonating a senior Delhi police officer.
Which groups were targeted?
The Internet Freedom Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India. The orders claimed they had defamed the RSS.
How did the fake orders reach X?
They were submitted through X’s online reporting form. They invoked Indian rules that require platforms to act on notices within three hours.
What has the IFF asked the court to do?
The IFF has asked the Delhi High Court to quash the orders. Amnesty and India’s main opposition party have contested their legality.
