Modi Summons Telecom Secretary Over Fake Court Orders
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office summoned the telecommunications secretary on Saturday to explain how officials ordered the takedown of more than 100 websites based on fake court orders that Reuters exposed, two government sources said.
Reuters revealed on Wednesday that telecom officials directed internet providers to block 129 illegal betting websites based on fake High Court orders, which were emailed to officials by people posing as lawyers. Online betting is illegal in India, but the case has raised concerns that a lack of safeguards in India’s content-takedown system could allow falsified court documents to be used to block legitimate websites.
The findings have triggered one criminal investigation by state police against unknown persons for forgery and cheating. Modi’s office summoned Telecom Secretary Amit Agrawal to appear and explain the lapse, cutting short Agrawal’s trip to another state, the two officials said. Agrawal is the most senior bureaucrat in the telecommunications ministry, which oversees everyone from big telecom operators to internet providers.
Fake court orders stayed online for months
The two state court orders Reuters revealed were fake contained fabricated court logos and seals, as well as a fake QR code, based on comments from police and the court registry. They were publicly available on the Department of Telecommunications’ website for months, along with correspondence that showed government officials ordering internet providers to remove the websites.
On Saturday, one of the fake court orders was still accessible on the government’s website, while one had been removed.
On Friday, the telecoms ministry had begun an internal investigation into the alleged fraud, while police have sought ministry records as part of a criminal investigation. Agrawal and his ministry did not respond to Reuters queries, and neither did Modi’s office.
Why fake court orders worry judges worldwide
The pattern is not new. FP reported on Thursday that India’s Supreme Court set aside a tribunal’s orders in July after they relied on non-existent judgments, and a United States judge disqualified lawyers over fabricated legal citations.
The Indian case shows the risk in a different form: not a lawyer citing a fake judgment in court, but officials acting on documents that arrived by email and looked official. A takedown system that trusts the paperwork without checking it against a court registry can be used to silence a website before anyone notices.
Pakistan has seen the same pattern in smaller ways. A fake police order circulated on X and drew warnings from free-speech groups. The Election Commission has also proposed rules for AI-generated content in elections, and the National CERT has warned against restoring hacked systems before clearance. The lesson travels: any system that acts on a document must first check that the document is real.
The case also sits inside a wider Indian debate about courts and free speech. A Calcutta court ordered the takedown of a documentary on Adani and Modi, and India’s opposition has mocked an impeachment move against the poll chief. In each case, the question is the same: who checks the order before it is enforced.
For India, the next step is the ministry’s internal investigation and the police case. The question now is whether the inquiry reaches the officials who acted on the fake orders, and whether the takedown process gets the registry check it lacked.
Frequently asked questions
What did Modi’s office do?
It summoned Telecom Secretary Amit Agrawal on Saturday to explain how officials ordered the takedown of more than 100 websites on the basis of court orders that Reuters revealed were fake.
How many websites were blocked?
Telecom officials directed internet providers to block 129 illegal betting websites after acting on the fake High Court orders.
How were the orders faked?
They carried fabricated court logos and seals and a fake QR code, and they were emailed to officials by people posing as lawyers.
Is anyone being investigated?
Yes. State police have opened one criminal investigation for forgery and cheating, and the telecoms ministry has begun an internal investigation. Police have sought ministry records.
Why does it matter?
It shows that falsified documents can be used to block websites, including legitimate ones, if takedown systems do not verify them against a court registry first.
