New Delhi: The Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) has filed a petition before the Delhi high court challenging the takedown notices it received on October 31 and November 2, the outfit announced on Thursday (November 5). It said the notices could not be confirmed by Delhi Police and therefore were of doubtful provenance.“We have approached the Delhi high court seeking the quashing of the takedown notices that directed the removal of our X account and several posts published on it,” SLFC announced on X.The statement said that the authenticity of these notices remains unverified “despite repeated attempts” to approach the Delhi Police to confirm them. “Several emails were returned as undeliverable, and we are yet to receive an official response from the Delhi Police,” it said.“The possibility of our entire account being taken down on the basis of unverified requests, without clear reasons or effective safeguards, has constrained us to file this petition,” it said.SFLC.in is a legal services organisation that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, business professionals, students and citizens to “protect freedom in the digital world since 2010”.The takedown requests it has received relate to posts discussing the legal notices received by SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindia, among others, from an advocate who claims to represent the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).SFLC.in had posted on X tagging Delhi Police on Tuesday (November 3), with a request to verify the notices it was being sent in the department’s name. On Wedneday as well, it had posted that the email address used to request the takedown of its X account and posts “does not exist” and that an incorrect address was listed on the Delhi Police’s website. It released an image of the bounce-back email, the first indication that Delhi Police had been presenting the public with an incorrect email ID while sending takedown notices to citizens from an address that works.Delhi Police has also asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation’s entire account as well as six of its posts. The IFF issued a statement detailing how the notices claimed to be issued on behald of the RSS and the subsequent police action it faced.Separately, SFLC.in and @geoblockedindia have reported getting notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police’s Cyber Crime unit.Also read: ‘Documenting Censorship is Not a Crime’: SFLC.in Slams Delhi Police Takedown Requests on XAfter receiving a letter from SFLC.in about the email address being incorrect, the organisation said, Delhi Police corrected it. SFLC.in said: “We now urge @DelhiPolice and @hgsdhaliwalips to also clarify whether the takedown notices were actually issued and authorised by them.”To verify the authenticity of the takedown orders we received yesterday, issued against https://t.co/X7ipfsWjp2’s X handle and posts, we emailed @DelhiPolice at the email ID mentioned in the orders. However, our email bounced back with a message stating that the user does not exist.Interestingly, the same email address is also listed on the Delhi Police website. We had verified the same.This raises questions about the authenticity of the takedown orders. @DelhiPolice, @hgsdhaliwalips could you please confirm if these orders were issued by you?@nit_set @neha_aisa @SauravDassss @SaketGokhale @JohnBrittas @svaradarajan @tajmahalfoxtrot @AbhinandanSekhr @ravish_journo @VTankha @derekobrienmp @cpimlliberation @MahuaMoitra @supriya_sule @MaktoobMedia @AroonDeep— SFLC.in (@SFLCin) November 4, 2026On Tuesday (November 3), the organisation had strongly objected to takedown requests targeting its X handle and posts which documented “instances of online censorship in India”.“The requests relate to posts discussing legal notices received by SFLC.in, IFF and @geoblockedindiafrom an advocate purportedly acting on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). They also include posts by users who commented on or reshared these posts, as well as other posts by @geoblockedindiadocumenting instances of digital censorship,” it said on November 3.That notice, SFLC.in said, was received by it three days earlier, on October 31. “The notice took objection to SFLC.in‘s Free Speech Tracker,” it said. The lawyer’s notice also alleged defamatory content in the posts. SFLC.in’s statement pointed out that Delhi Police could not legally issue a content takedown order for such an offence without first obtaining a court order, since criminal defamation was a non-cognisable offence. The notice it received claimed there was such a court order, however, the legal precedent itself was not cited while asking the posts and the entire X account be taken down. The same advocate sent another notice to the outfit on November 1. “This notice stated that the matter had been transferred to the RSS’s legal and advocacy wing, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, and referred to complaints allegedly filed in different states,” SFLC.in’s November 3 statement on X said. Thereafter, also on November 1, X informed SFLC.in that it had received a request from “Indian Police” alleging that a post discussing the legal notice (from the advocate) “violated Indian law”. “However, this notification did not identify the requesting law enforcement agency, statutory provisions invoked, or provide a copy of the underlying order or request. The post remains accessible on X at the time of writing,” SFLC.in said.Two days later, SFLC.in says it received another communication from X with more directions from Delhi Police, covering 42 URLs, including the URL for SFLC.in’s account, under rules for intermediaries under the Information Technology Act and provisions for defamation in the criminal law.SFLC.in said in its post that the request to restrict its entire X handle, “rather than identifying and seeking the removal of specific allegedly unlawful content does not meet the necessity and proportionality standards”.It pointed out that reasonable restrictions under constitutional protections given to free speech cannot be allowed to restrict the right to communicate and the public’s “corresponding right to receive information”.It also highlighted that such restrictions, based on Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, raised questions to whether intermediary liability provisions are being “used as an independent mechanism for restricting online speech, potentially bypassing the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009”.It also pointed out that SFLC.in’s own challenge to the powers of the Delhi Police to issue takedown orders for removal of social media content is currently pending in the Delhi high court.“Documenting a restriction does not amount to endorsing the restricted content, facilitating access to it or encouraging circumvention of the law,” it said. Note: The IFF has condemned the Delhi police’s notices to X asking for the accounts of IFF, SFLC.in and geoblockedindia to be taken down, along with posts from several other users, including The Wire’s Editor Seema Chishti.