deepak patel

जब सत्ता वैसे नागरिकों को हंट करने लगे, जो उनकी कमियों को उजागर करते हों; जो उनकी त्रुटिपूर्ण नीतियों की आलोचना करते हों; जो संवैधानिक दायरे में रह कर विरोध करते हों; जो लिखने-बोलने पर अंकुश लगाने लगे… तब समझिए कि उन्होंने वह रास्ता चुन लिया है जिसका आरोप वह दूसरों पर लगाते रहे हैं। @khurpenchh या अन्य हैंडलों पर FSSAI के भ्रष्टाचार को सार्वजनिक करने पर जो FIR हुई है, वह बताती है कि सत्ता/प्रशासन सुधार की जगह इसे ढकने में विश्वास रखती है। @BJP4India के @narendramodi जी, जब पब्लिक इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर गिरने/बहने लगें, जब IAS/IPS जाली सर्टिफिकेट लगा कर नौकरी पानें लगें, जब सरकारी कर्मचारी नियमों की अनदेखी कर चुने जाने लगें, और आपकी पुलिस उन्हें ही पकड़ने लगे जो ये एक्सपोज करते हैं, तो स्वयं को पार्टी विद अ डिफरेंस कहना बंद कर दीजिए। मैं खुरपेंच समेत, हर उस व्यक्ति के साथ हूँ जो सरकारी भ्रष्टाचार को सार्वजनिक करने में लगा हुआ है।

Statement by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) on Delhi Police Notices to X (formerly Twitter) Seeking User Data in FIR No. 135/2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation is deeply concerned by reports that Delhi Police has written to X seeking expansive identifying information for multiple social media accounts. The demand is in connection with with FIR No. 135/2026 registered at PS IP Estate, Central Delhi (dated 24.03.2026) under Sections 316(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These notices publicly shared and now under scrutiny target several X handles, including @khurpenchh, @YTKDIndia, @gemsofbabus_, @IamTheStory__, and @NalinisKitchen (among others). They seek not just basic subscriber information but highly intrusive details including, mobile numbers and emails used for registration, full IP logs with ports for all active sessions since account creation, recovery emails, and “any other information”. Such sweeping demands go far beyond what is necessary or proportionate for any legitimate investigation such as basic subscriber information that may be legitimately requested. The FIR itself raises serious concerns about misuse of criminal law against online expression. From information available in the public domain it alleges that posts on X by these handles were published with “malicious intent to defame” a victim (referred to as “her”), causing “chaos before the public,” and that certain “highly confidential” details were “stolen” and disclosed. The invoked sections, BNS 316(4) (criminal breach of trust by a clerk/servant, carrying up to 7 years’ imprisonment) read with 3(5) (common intention/joint liability), and IT Act 72A (disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract) appear stretched and ill-suited to the facts. A prima facia analysis of the specific posts referenced in the notices (e.g., content from @khurpenchh dated around 10 March 2026) shows they involve public-interest exposes alleging irregularities in appointments at FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India). Far from baseless defamation, these appear to be critical commentary and allegations of possible malpractices in public employment, which are protected forms of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Resorting to criminal provisions meant for breach of trust by employees or contractual disclosures to unmask critics sets a dangerous precedent. If the core grievance is reputational harm then a statement by the government body or even perhaps in extreme situation civil remedies (such as a defamation suit) would suffice. Instead, the police have chosen the criminal route, which carries the threat of arrest, investigation, and chilling effects. This is a classic case of weaponising criminal law to suppress scrutiny of public officials and institutions. The data demands pose grave privacy risks under Article 21 of the Constitution. Requiring IP logs, port details, and session history since account creation enables not just identification but comprehensive tracking of users’ digital footprints. In an era of pervasive surveillance, this could expose critics, journalists, or whistleblowers to harassment, doxxing, or retaliation especially when the accounts appear to be anonymous voices highlighting alleged systemic issues. Further, X (as an intermediary) is being asked to hand over data without adequate judicial oversight or necessity demonstration, echoing patterns IFF has repeatedly flagged in cases involving Section 69 of the IT Act or CrPC/BNSS notices. Such bulk, open-ended requests (“any other information”) violate the principles of necessity, proportionality, and minimal intrusion laid down by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and subsequent digital rights jurisprudence. We must remember that anonymous or pseudonymous accounts play a vital role in India’s online discourse, enabling fearless criticism of power without fear of reprisal. By pursuing these handles through police notices and FIRs, the authorities send a clear message that you question the system at your peril. The affected users have rightly described this as a “witch hunt.” IFF echoes that concern. At a time when digital spaces are among the few remaining avenues for robust public debate, such actions erode the foundational guarantee of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). They also undermine trust in law enforcement, turning routine criticism into criminal investigations that drain resources better spent on real crimes. IFF will continue monitoring this case. Freedom of expression on the internet is not a privilege but a constitutional right that must be fiercely protected against overreach. Internet Freedom Foundation New Delhi 02 April 2026