Police in Delhi have registered a criminal case after requests made in the force’s name sought the removal of posts and accounts belonging to two Indian digital rights organisations.
The filing concerns communications that a social media platform told the Delhi High Court were not genuine police notices. The Internet Freedom Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India had challenged the requests because they feared their accounts could be restricted.
A police officer confirmed that the first information report, or FIR, was registered against unknown persons on 7 November. The filing refers to provisions concerning forgery, impersonation of a public servant and information technology law. An FIR records a matter for investigation; it is not a finding that anyone has committed an offence.
The platform’s lawyer told the court on 6 November that an internal inquiry had found the notices were sent by someone impersonating the police. The lawyer said the platform had not acted on the requests and had made a complaint to the police.
The platform also told the court it was not likely to act on the reports at that stage. The judge disposed of the organisations’ petitions after recording the platform’s position, leaving them free to return to court if action was taken against their accounts or posts.
How the requests developed
The Internet Freedom Foundation said it learnt of the relevant reports on 3 November, when the platform forwarded copies to it. One was dated 31 October and identified a post from each of the two organisations. A second, dated 2 November, sought action against more posts and three accounts in their entirety.
The later report listed 37 individual posts as well as the three accounts. Alongside material from the two organisations and an account that documents online restrictions, the foundation said the list included posts by 16 other users who had commented on the controversy. The request referred to a three-hour period for removing or withholding the material.
The reports alleged that the posts defamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an Indian organisation. The posts included discussion of an earlier legal notice that purported to have been sent on the organisation’s behalf. That purported notice and the subsequent requests should not be treated as proof that the organisation sent them or sought the removals.
The foundation said it had questioned the earlier notice and published it with a response. It said the notice had called on recipients to stop opposing government directions on online content and documenting restrictions. The foundation described its own response as an exercise of free expression.
Questions over authenticity
Before the hearing, the Software Freedom Law Centre said it had sought clarification from the police and the platform. An email sent to an address appearing on the notices was returned as undeliverable, it said. The centre also noted that fields asking for the details of a court order had been left blank.
The organisations questioned both the authenticity of the communications and the legal basis for removing accounts. Those concerns were arguments made by the groups. The court’s disposal of their petitions followed the platform’s statement and did not amount to a final ruling on every legal issue they had raised.
The case illustrates why the distinction between a request and an action matters. The platform said it had not acted on the disputed reports, while the organisations had gone to court because they were concerned that action might follow. The police investigation is separate from that court proceeding and concerns the apparent impersonation and alleged forgery.
The date on which the FIR was registered should not be confused with the 6 November hearing or the dates on the disputed reports. The investigation’s ultimate outcome remains unresolved.
