New Delhi: SFLC.in, along with Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), has filed a writ petition in the Delhi high court challenging the takedown notices purportedly issued by the Delhi Police on October 31 and November 2, 2026. The petitioners filed the writ seeking the quashing of the takedown notices that directed the removal of their X accounts and several posts published on them.Software Freedom Law Centre, India, which goes as SFLC.in, has questioned the authenticity and legality of a series of takedown notices sent to it by X, which it believes targets the digital rights of the organisation’s own handle and those of dozens of other posts and accounts.In a statement posted on X, the IFF said, “Due to the lack of any official denial or rescision by the Delhi Police for the takedown notices for IFF’s X account that were communicated by X to us, IFF has been constrained to file a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The matter is registered and will come up for hearing tomorrow.”According to SFLC.in, the notices raise multiple red flags: they were issued by an officer who is not officially authorised to do so, the notices don’t cite any court order or complaint and the email address from which they were sent does not appear to exist.Bounced emails, a changed addressSFLC.in said that it first examined the email header of the initial notice, traced the originating IP address through a WHOIS lookup and checked it against the domain’s SPF record. The IP was registered to the organisation and listed as an authorised sender.After the second and third requests arrived with copies of the purported Delhi Police notices, the group emailed the address printed on them (splcp-crime-dl@delhipolice.gov.in) and those of other senior officers, asking whether the notices were genuine. Emails to that address and to jointcp.cybertech@delhipolice.gov.in bounced back, with automated messages saying the users did not exist.Also read: Digital Rights Body Moves Delhi HC to Challenge Takedown Notices, Citing Doubts Over Their OriginThe Wire tried emailing these addresses – and they bounced back.SFLC.in said the email address listed on the Delhi Police website had been changed from splcp-crime-dl@delhipolice.gov.in to splcp.crime-dl@delhipolice.gov.in, with the hyphen being replaced by a full stop. According to the group, this further muddies the origin of the notices.The organisation also lodged a formal complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, IFSO Unit, one of the bodies authorised under Section 79(3)(b), asking it to verify the notices.SFLC.in has said that the police were effectively inaccessible through the email addresses listed on their website. “We do believe that such channels should be accessible and it shouldn’t be a civil society organisation’s responsibility or duty to actively go through these platforms and check whether these email IDs are correct or not,” said a spokesperson, requesting anonymity.“We believe that these checks and balances should already be in place and there should be an active vigilance or active attempt to fix these errors. Especially when it comes to things like email IDs or ways to reach out to the Delhi Police or any other authority,” they said.The noticesThe first notice was issued on October 31, 2026, and it flagged a post by SFLC.in on the grounds of “safety/security; defamation; and other”. It described the post as defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.The fields concerning the nature and details of any court order were left blank.Also read: 91 Notices, Over 1,100 URLs Flagged in MHAs Takedown Orders to X: ReportSFLC.in pointed out that the notice described the requesting authority only as “Indian Police” and the legal basis as “Indian law”. X’s notifications ordinarily name the agency and the specific provisions invoked.The second notice, dated November 2, covered a list of 42 posts and accounts. It listed the grounds as “hate speech; safety/security; defamation; enforcement of court order; and other”, and invoked Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000. It asked X to act within three hours.SFLC.in said its posts contained no defamatory allegations against the RSS and were purely factual reporting on a notice it had received, purportedly from a lawyer representing the organisation, on October 29.The group also pointed out that criminal defamation under Section 356 of the BNS is a non-cognisable offence, meaning that the police cannot act without a magistrate’s order. No such order was attached to either of the notices. The second notice mentioned “enforcement of court order” as a ground but cited no order. It also identified no statutory provision for the alleged hate speech or safety/security violations.An officer without the powerSFLC.in has also raised questions about who issued these notices. An order of the Delhi Home Department (F. No. B/69/2025-Home-II/1246-1254), dated June 2, 2026, specifies that only the following officers are authorised by the Lieutenant Governor to issue takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act:The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary (Home) or Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi.The Joint Commissioner of Police, IFSO, Special Cell, as State Nodal Officer.Joint Commissioners and Additional Commissioners of Police of the Ranges, IFSO, EOW, Crime, Special Cell, Special Branch, IGIA, Railways, Metro and SPUWAC.The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), named as the issuing authority in the notices, is not on this list, SFLC.in said. It said this raises “serious concerns” about the legal validity of the notices.Questions for XSFLC.in also turned its scrutiny on X. It wrote to the platform and posted publicly, tagging @GlobalAffairs, @X and Elon Musk, asking which agency had submitted the request, under what provisions, and for a copy of the underlying order.It further asked through which channel the requests came, whether it was through X’s Legal Request Portal, or through the Law Enforcement Request (LER) form in its Help Centre, or some other mechanism. It has asked whether X had received any court orders, and whether the Delhi Police had actually submitted the requests.Also read: ‘Documenting Censorship is Not a Crime’: SFLC.in Slams Delhi Police Takedown Requests on XIn the course of its checks, SFLC.in found that the LER form had no way of verifying the identity of the person submitting a request or authenticating the email address used. This meant, as the group said, that anyone could in principle impersonate a law enforcement official. When it checked the form again later, X had introduced a verification code sent to the submitter’s email address.Questions for Delhi PoliceIn a statement issued by SFLC.in it also called upon the Delhi Police to immediately withdraw the takedown requests, which it described as unlawful, disproportionate and in violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.The organisation also asked the police to verify the authenticity of the notices and issue an official clarification on whether they were in fact submitted by the force. The authorities must also clarify whether the officers named in the notices had authorised their issuance and submission to X, the organisation said.Further, SFLC.in demanded that the Delhi Police disclose the legal basis for the requests and furnish copies of any court orders or other legally binding directions relied upon to seek the removal or withholding of the content. These documents, it said, should be made available to all the organisations and users whose posts or accounts were named in the notices.