Legal Experts Question Police Powers to Issue Online Content Takedown Notices
Questions over the legality and scope of police powers to issue online content takedown notices have intensified in India, bringing the relationship between digital regulation, freedom of speech and executive authority under renewed scrutiny.
The controversy gained attention after the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.in), raised concerns over alleged takedown requests targeting their social media accounts and other users over purported defamatory content concerning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Controversial Takedown Requests
According to a report published by ThePrint on 6 November 2026, X informed the Delhi High Court that certain emails requesting the removal of accounts belonging to IFF, SFLC.in and other users were sent by an impostor and not by the Delhi Police. X stated that its internal investigation had identified the communication as fake and that a complaint had been filed with the police.
The controversy involved alleged requests concerning approximately 40 URLs, with references to defamation, hate speech and other grounds. Some of the communications reportedly invoked Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legal Questions Under the IT Act
The principal legal provisions involved are Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Section 79 provides conditional safe-harbour protection to online intermediaries for third-party content. However, intermediaries may lose this protection if they fail to comply with legally valid directions concerning unlawful information.
The 2025 amendments to Rule 3(1)(d), effective from 15 November 2025, introduced important safeguards. Police authorities must issue such intimations through specially authorised officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). The notices must specify the applicable legal provisions, the nature of the alleged unlawful act and the exact content targeted. They are also subject to monthly review by an officer of at least Secretary rank.
Freedom of Speech and Criminal Procedure
IFF questioned the legal basis of the alleged requests, particularly because criminal defamation under Section 356 of the BNS is a non-cognisable offence. Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regulates the court's cognisance of defamation complaints, while Section 174 restricts police investigation into non-cognisable offences without an order from a Magistrate.
The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) also remains significant. The Court interpreted Section 79(3)(b) in a manner that safeguards online speech against arbitrary removal and emphasised the importance of constitutionally valid grounds for restricting expression.
What Happens Next?
The Delhi High Court recorded X's statement that the disputed emails were sent by an impostor and disposed of the petitions with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again if further action is taken.
The controversy highlights the need for lawful authorisation, transparency, procedural safeguards and accountability whenever government authorities seek to restrict online expression.
Ultimately, the issue raises an important constitutional question: how can the State regulate unlawful online content without undermining the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?
Source: ThePrint, 6 November 2026.