Delhi Police seeks removal of Internet Freedom Foundation, 2 other accounts over 'RSS defamation'

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), as well as the operator of GeoBlockedIndia, over allegations of defamation against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The notices also seek the removal of 37 individual posts, including content published by 16 other users.

IFF, which works on digital rights and civil liberties, said on Tuesday that it would approach the court if the police did not withdraw the notices. The foundation said it received copies of both notices from X on the morning of 3 November.

The notices were filed by the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, on 31 October and 2 November.

According to IFF, the first notice was sent to X on 31 October at 8.06 pm. It identified two posts published by IFF and SFLC on 30 October concerning a legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS. The police 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, sent on 2 November at 8.51 am, listed 40 URLs. These included 37 individual posts and the entire X accounts of IFF, SFLC and GeoBlockedIndia.

The police cited Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with criminal defamation, and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

The second notice stated that the posts constituted defamation and illegal content and that platforms were required to act within three hours of receiving legally recognised notices.

The dispute began on 29 October, when IFF, SFLC and the operator of GeoBlockedIndia received a two-page legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the organisations to stop opposing government blocking directions, documenting restricted content and publishing details of geo-blocked posts. It also sought written confirmation within seven days that they would comply.

The notice was signed by an unnamed "Authorised Signatory". IFF said several RSS office-bearers subsequently questioned its authenticity in posts on X.

On 30 October, IFF published the legal notice along with its response, saying 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.

IFF questioned the legal basis of the police action, arguing that 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 provides that a court can take cognisance of criminal defamation only upon a complaint by the aggrieved person.

It also invoked Section 174 of the BNSS, arguing that 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. It further claimed that the sections relating to court orders in both notices had been left blank.

The foundation cited Supreme Court judgments on criminal defamation and online content restrictions, arguing that legal safeguards require such matters to be examined by courts and that restrictions on speech must meet tests of necessity and proportionality.

It contended that seeking the removal of entire organisational accounts over a limited number of posts was disproportionate. The notices also covered 16 other users whose posts, according to IFF, commented on the legal notice or the controversy surrounding it.

The organisation maintained that the posts reproduced a legal notice it had received, 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.

It also argued that the posts were protected by exceptions to Section 356(1) of the BNS concerning certain statements made in the public interest, including opinions on public conduct and matters of public importance.

IFF warned that the notices could affect the work of organisations documenting internet censorship and assisting users whose accounts or posts are restricted in India.

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. SFLC's Free Speech Tracker, it added, had recorded around 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions during the first 29 days of October. GeoBlockedIndia maintains records of blocking orders disclosed by online platforms.

IFF has demanded that the Delhi Police withdraw both notices and confirm the decision in writing to X and the foundation. It has also sought disclosure of the complaint that prompted the police action, the authority under which the notices were issued and whether a magistrate had authorised an investigation under Section 174 of the BNSS.

The foundation has urged X not to act on the notices and to provide affected users with the full requests and legal grounds before withholding content. It has also asked the RSS to clarify publicly whether it authorised the legal notice or filed any police complaint.

IFF said X forwarded the two notices on 3 November at 8.47 am and 10.03 am, respectively, stating that the disclosures were being made "in the interest of transparency" and that the foundation could seek legal advice and challenge the requests in court.

The emails from X did not indicate whether the platform had acted on the takedown requests, IFF said.

"If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court," the foundation said, adding that it would continue documenting blocking orders and providing legal assistance to users affected by content restrictions.