Rachit

Research, Baldur's Gate 3, Adrak Chai.

[Adv Anand Dasa @Anand_Dasa88]

शेवटी तो विडिओ सापडलाच

"SIR वर संसदेत चर्चा होऊ शकत नाही. तो EC च्या अखत्यारितीतला विषय आहे"

अमित शाह (संसदेत)

तेच अमित शाह आता म्हणत आहेत, संसदेत SIR वर चर्चा करू. कसले डबल ढोलकी आहेत हे.

गोदी मीडिया, अंधभक्त ऐका 👇

[Bar and Bench @barandbench]

#Breaking
X (formerly Twitter) tells the Delhi High Court that the notices to block the Internet Freedom Foundation and Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) accounts were issued by an "imposter" and not the Delhi Police.

X says it has already filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against the imposter, and IFF and SFLC's accounts will not be taken down.

@internetfreedom @SFLCin

[Kamran @CitizenKamran]

Serious questions over the SIR process in Delhi!

In Mustafabad, 787 of the 1,021 Form 7 applications seeking voter deletions were reportedly filed in the names of BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents. Yet 16 of the 20 BLAs named have denied submitting or signing these forms.

Even more disturbing, all 787 applications reportedly targeted Muslim voters.

It is clear that SIR is misused to target Muslim voters & should be scrapped!

[Live Law @LiveLawIndia]

#BREAKING Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) holds that voters who changed address cannot be forced by the ECI to file Form 6 to register as new voters during the SIR process, as it would amount to making a false declaration.

[Cockroach Janta Party - CJP @Cockroachisback]

Modi Govt is TERRIFIED of voices it cannot silence!

CJP’s National Secretary @Aafreen_Nawazz’s Instagram account got restricted in India!

Why is the government so afraid of free voices?

[The Rebel @TheRebel_IN]

🚨MASSIVE BREAKING : The Hindu just EXPOSED BJP's Form 7 game in Delhi. 🔥
(MUST Read & Share)

787 Muslim voters targeted, and the BJP men named on the forms say "we never filed them"

Someone is deleting Muslim voters in Delhi using BJP workers' names. And the BJP workers themselves are saying "not me".

→ In Delhi's Mustafabad, 1,021 applications have been filed during SIR to delete names from the voter list.
→ 787 of them, that's 77%, name just 20 BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents as the "objectors".
→ ALL 787 are against Muslim voters.
→ 16 of those 20 BJP agents say they never filed or signed these forms. Most say they had no idea forms were filed in their names.
→ One agent says Muslim voters on these forms are his own neighbours. They live at the same addresses. He has complained and resigned as a BJP agent.
→ He says when he raised it, the local BJP councillor told him to "ignore it and let things be as they are".
→ One agent says the forms in his name are from an area that isn't even his.
→ Only one BJP agent owned up. He claims he has filed "500" such forms by himself.
→ ECI's own rule says one person can file only 10 such forms in the whole period. These forms were filed without the required undertaking.
→ The DEO, Delhi's Chief Electoral Officer and ECI did not reply to questions.

Now connect the dots.

If 16 BJP agents didn't fill these forms, then who did?
Who had their names, their details, their phone numbers?
Who sat and filled 787 forms, all against Muslim voters, in one constituency?
ECI made a 10-form limit. One man says he filed 500. Nobody stopped him.
And the forms with the agents' names went through anyway.
First voters were deleted as "shifted". Then BLOs asked people to prove they are Indian. Now forms are allegedly being filed in other people's names.

Gyanesh, 787 forms, all against Muslims, and your officers have no reply?
Who filed them, if not the men whose names are on them?
Modi, is this the "clean voter list" you wanted? 🔥🔥🔥

[Abhishek Rana @AbhishekRana_]

A female advocate (@whattalawyer) gets confined in a car outside her own home with no legal order shown. Her plea was dismissed for want of an affidavit. Weeks later, the State has finally acted. Not on her confinement, but on her tweets.

Contempt exists to protect the administration of justice, not the dignity of judges. Lord Denning said courts would never use it "to suppress those who speak against us." Justice Krishna Iyer in Re. S. Mulgaokar asked for a "wise economy" in its use. Her words were sharp. A confident judiciary answers sharp words with reasons, not prosecution.

But one should pay attention to the asymmetry at hand. The question of who authorised her confinement was never addressed by the judge. Consent to prosecute her over her angry posts about it came within weeks.

England abolished scandalising the court in 2013 as a relic. In India, it is being used to silence the very questions courts should be answering.

[Saket Gokhale @SaketGokhale]

SIR isn’t limited to just deleting voters. It has become a tool for stripping people’s citizenship.

Despite being exposed for vote chori in the garb of SIR, Gyanesh Kumar & ECI are continuing with their dirty tricks.

In Delhi, BLOs have now been told to ask voters for “citizenship proof”.

In India, there’s not a SINGLE document that qualifies as proof of citizenship. The only way to prove it is through your birth certificate (if born before Jun 1987) & additionally your parents’ birth certificate(s) if born after Jun 1987.

The Supreme Court itself had declared that ECI does NOT have the power to determine citizenship. Only the MHA can do that.

Will @CeodelhiOffice explain this new nonsense?

[Abhijeet Dipke @abhijeet_dipke]

Every decision taken by Gyanesh Kumar has now been reversed. But reversing those decisions raises an even bigger question: If his actions were serious enough to warrant reversal, shouldn't there be consequences for the man responsible?

And more importantly, what if @RitikaChopra__ had never exposed this? What if there had been no public outrage? Would these decisions have ever been reversed?

How many such decisions go unquestioned simply because nobody exposes them?

[Alvaro Bedoya @BedoyaUSA]

When I was at the FTC, one of my jobs was to build our first interdisciplinary team to look at the impact of tech on kids' mental health. I remember to this day a study that asked 6 to 10 year olds if they could be "friends" with Alexa.

Two out of three said "Yes."

This was Alexa in 2021, pre-AI. Children are trusting, and they trust us to take care of them. They have a very hard time distinguishing between what is real and what is not, especially with things that they cannot see or touch.

Children won't just over-rely on Gemini. They will think it is their friend, and they will grow emotionally dependent on it. Look at the research on Replika and Character AI: Fully grown adults are falling in love with chatbots, they are "marrying" and "having kids" with these chatbots. And again, those are adults.

Google is often portrayed as being more "mature" or "grown up" than other tech companies because they have more lawyers and policy staff. This decision is as dark and irresponsible as anything we've seen from any tech company, including Meta, Open AI or Anthropic.

[Sarthak Sidhant @sidhant_sarthak]

too long to read so here are some images

bye goodnight

[Mahua Moitra @MahuaMoitra]

Why has @INCWestBengal insta account been suspended? What kind of rubbish is this @MIB_India ?

[Saurav Das @SauravDassss]

Wow. Wow. Wow!

Constitutional courts making us very, very proud! BIG CLAPS! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[Rachit @rachit_yaps]

Emergency 2026 in India : RSS now agrees its actions are bad, for they keep suing everyone who talks about them for defamation

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

Delhi Police asks X to take down IFF's account and posts. IFF will challenge the notices in court unless they are withdrawn.

The Delhi Police has asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation's account, six of its posts, the accounts of SFLC and @geoblockedindia, and posts by 16 other users, on the ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The posts document and comment on a legal notice sent in the RSS's name to IFF, SFLC and @geoblockedindia, which demanded that the three stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders. IFF received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of 3 November 2026.
IFF calls on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. If they are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court.

What has happened

On 29 October 2026 at 9:54 PM, IFF, SFLC and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page "legal notice" said to be issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the three to stop opposing the government's blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm in writing within seven days that they would comply. It was signed by an unnamed "Authorised Signatory". Several RSS office-bearers have since said on X that the notice is not authentic. IFF replied to the notice, wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it, and published both the notice and its reply on 30 October.

On 31 October 2026 at 8:06 PM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, filed an "Illegal Content Report" with X (reference LD-321926). It listed two posts: IFF's post of 30 October on the notice, and SFLC post of the same day. The stated reason was that the posts are "defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". The boxes for "safety/security", "defamation" and "other" were ticked. The fields for the nature of the court order and court order details were left empty. The desired action was "Remove/withhold content".

On 1 November 2026, a second notice arrived in the RSS's name. It said the matter had been handed to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF's X account and suspend the organisations. The Delhi Police had made its first request to X the previous evening. IFF did not know this until X told it on 3 November.

On 2 November 2026 at 8:51 AM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) filed a second notice with X (reference LD-322956). It lists 40 URLs. Thirty-seven are posts. Three are the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. This time the boxes for "Hate speech", "defamation", "safety/security", "enforcement of court order" and "other" were all ticked. The court order fields were again left empty. The stated reason reads: "The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours."

The 16 other users are @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind. Their posts, as far as IFF can tell, comment on the notice or on the notice about it.

X forwarded both notice to IFF on 3 November 2026, at 8:47 AM and 10:03 AM, saying it was doing so "in the interest of transparency" and that IFF may wish to seek legal counsel and challenge the request in court. X's emails do not say that it has acted on the requests. The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police's Cyber Crime unit, one of them against the whole of the @geoblockedindia account.

IFF's position

IFF condemns this legal action. A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship. The notices would deliver exactly what the notice asked for as they would also remove the accounts of the three groups in India that keep public records of what is blocked, and of who ordered it.

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.

In the three weeks before the first notice, IFF assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India. SFLC's Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first 29 days of October. @geoblockedindia publishes the orders behind such blocks when platforms disclose them. None of this is unlawful. Documenting censorship and challenging it in court is what the Constitution expects of citizens.
IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court.

Why the reports are unlawful

Defamation is not a police matter. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-cognizable and bailable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no court can take cognizance of it except on a complaint by the person aggrieved.

Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without an order of 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. Whether a statement is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing its author, with the defences of truth, fair comment and good faith available to that author.

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation on the strength of these safeguards. A police officer who asks a platform to remove speech as defamatory has decided the question himself, without a complainant, a court or a hearing.

The posts are protected comment. Exceptions 1 to 3 to Section 356(1) protect the truth published for the public good, opinion on the public conduct of public servants, and opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question. The posts publish a notice that was sent to us and give our opinion of it. The RSS, if it sent the notice, chose to enter a public question. If it did not, the posts defame no one.

Further, Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) do not permit this. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary acquires "actual knowledge" only through a court order, or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are being committed. The court said that it would be difficult for intermediaries to judge the legitimacy of the millions of requests they receive, and that the burden must not be placed on them. Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in November 2025 and February 2026, now requires the intimation to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Deputy Inspector General, to be reasoned, and to specify the legal basis and the nature of the unlawful act, subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer. The three-hour window the notice invokes applies to a lawful order that meets these conditions. A web form that ticks "hate speech" and "enforcement of court order" while leaving the court order fields blank, and that gives one sentence of reasons for 40 URLs, is not such an order.

The notices by the Delhi Police are disproportionate. They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively. They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on speech must be necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available, and that orders restricting speech must be published and reasoned. Removing an organisation's entire account for criticising a legal notice fails each of these tests.

The effect is to silence documentation of censorship and providing legal aid to Indian internet users. The accounts named are those that record blocking orders in India. The notice asked them to stop. A takedown request that accomplishes the demand of an anonymous private notice is not law enforcement. It is the use of state power for a private end, which Article 14 forbids.

Our demands

1. To the Delhi Police: Withdraw reports LD-321926 and LD-322956 and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and to IFF.

2. To the Delhi Police: Disclose the complaint on which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed, and whether any order of a Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS exists. Disclose every request made to any platform in this matter, including those made by the Cyber Crime unit against @geoblockedindia.

3. To X: Do not act on the reports. If any content is withheld in India, tell the affected user before acting, give them the full request, and name the legal basis. Publish both reports to the Lumen database, as the reporting form itself contemplates.

4. To the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs: Have the Secretary-level review required by Rule 3(1)(d) examine these intimations, and tell police forces that Rule 3(1)(d) is not a remedy for defamation, which the law reserves to the person aggrieved and to the courts.

5. To the RSS: State publicly whether it authorised either notice or any complaint to the police. If it did not, say so to the Delhi Police.

If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court. 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.

[Apar Gupta @apar1984]

Please to speak up and share in solidarity. If IFF's account disappears from X we may not be able to reach in future.

[Apar Gupta @apar1984]

A growing number of defamation suits and "right to be forgotten" petitions in India are now aimed at financial journalism. The targets are reports on the corporate history of a company and its promoters such as past defaults, regulatory penalties, insolvency proceedings, investigations and litigation.

Several cases open with an ex parte injunction and end in a settlement or a takedown, with the reporting never tested on its merits.
Even when such a case is settled, the report it sought to remove does not lose its value.

A promoter's track record is a material fact. Investors, lenders, analysts and employees rely on it to decide whether to trust an entity with their money.

This is also what the regulatory regime in India is premised on disclosure. SEBI's listing regulations require continuous disclosure of material events, and its prospectus rules require an issuer to disclose outstanding litigation and regulatory action involving the company and its promoters. The RBI's framework for banks and NBFCs rests on the same principle of disclosure, including of defaults. However, these can only be provided context by independent financial reporting which can then examine what companies disclose, and to record what they would rather not.

The basis of the investor regime in India is that investors carry risk and reap reward on the strength of disclosure. This goes beyond regulatory filings to financial reporting, which includes the corporate history of an entity and its promoters. Censoring such reports undermines not only the right to free speech but also erodes confidence in the markets.

[Vijay Thottathil @vijaythottathil]

A probe into alleged irregularities in 10,470 voter entries in the assembly constituency found that a computer assistant had allegedly entered 13,779 Form-8 applications for changes in voter details between May 31 and August 29. But no application forms or supporting documents related to these entries were found in the office.

In India to manipulate votes all you need is a computer assistant & we are still speaking free & fair elections?

[Muzaffer Kal @🏡 🦆⏩ @MuzafferKal_]

A farce in three acts

[Mahua Moitra @MahuaMoitra]

All vote chori in Bengal being exposed seat by seat. Shameless Subrata Gupta now says he knew nothing of 16 lakh appeals filed by CEO office to delete voters. Vote Chor Manoj Agarwal now sitting in CS chair has to answer who did this.