New Delhi, 03 November— In a serious charge, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) today claimed that the Delhi police had asked X (formerly Twitter) to remove the IFF’s account and six posts concerning the RSS.
The IFF claim reveals a bizarre pattern in Delhi Police’s action which shows that it seems to be acting on its own.
The digital rights advocacy group vowed to fight the removal legally saying` it would challenge the requests in court unless they were withdrawn.
According to the IFF, two “Illegal Content Reports” submitted to X also sought action against the accounts of SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center, India) and GeoBlocked India (which tracks internet curbs), as well as posts by 16 other users.
“IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court,” the right group said in a statement.
IFF is a digital rights advocacy organisation that defends against threats to civil liberties and democracy in India, and SFLC is a donor-supported legal services and policy organisation founded in 2010 that protects digital freedom, privacy and civil liberties in India.
The IFF said the dispute began on October 29 when the IFF, the SFLC and the operator of GeoBlocked India received a two-page legal notice. The notice was purportedly issued on behalf of the RSS and was signed by an unnamed “Authorised Signatory”, per the IFF.
The IFF said several RSS office-bearers later told the organisation on X that the notice was not authentic.
The IFF said it wrote to the RSS at its official address seeking confirmation and published the notice along with its response on October 30.
The IFF alleged that the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, submitted the first report to X on October 31, seeking the removal or withholding of two posts – one each by IFF and SFLC – on the ground that they were defamatory towards the RSS under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The organisation claimed the report cited “defamation”, “safety/security” and “other” as grounds for action, but left the fields relating to any court order blank.
A second report was submitted on November 2 and listed 40 URLs, according to the IFF. These included 37 posts and the entire accounts of the IFF, the SFLC.in and GeoBlocked India.
The second report cited Section 356 of the BNS and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. It sought action within three hours, IFF said.
X forwarded the two reports to IFF on November 3 “in the interest of transparency” and suggested that the organisation might seek legal advice and challenge the requests in court, the statement said.
The IFF added that X had not indicated whether it had acted on them.
“The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose,” it said.
The IFF accused the police of acting on the basis of a private legal notice whose authenticity remained unconfirmed.
“A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed,” it said.
“The posts in question are about a legal notice sent to us. They quote it, criticise how it was drafted, and say that we will carry on with our work. A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it, and that is not defamation of the sender.”
The organisation also questioned the legal basis of the police requests, underlining that defamation under Section 356 of the BNS is a non-cognisable and bailable offence.
“Defamation is not a police matter,” IFF said, adding that the police could not investigate a non-cognisable offence without an order from a magistrate.
“The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) is not the person aggrieved. The notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no order of any magistrate,” it said.
The IFF asserted that the requests were disproportionate because they sought the removal of three accounts in their entirety and also covered posts by 16 other users who had commented on the controversy.
It also said it had assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India during the three weeks preceding the first notice. It said SFLC’s Free Speech Tracker had recorded around 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions during the first 29 days of October.
“They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively,” it said. “They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy.”
The IFF called upon the Delhi Police to withdraw the two reports and disclose the complaint, if any, on which they were based. It also asked whether a magistrate had authorised any investigation.
The organisation also called upon the RSSS to clarify whether it had authorised either of the legal notices or any complaint to the police.
“If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court,” the organisation said. “We will continue to document blocking orders, to publish them, and to provide legal assistance to anyone whose account or post is withheld in India. Nothing in these notices changes that.”
Veteran Journalist and Political Commentator
