India probes 129 website blocks linked to forged court orders
- The government blocked 129 websites this year based on two fake High Court orders.
- The Allahabad High Court filed a police complaint after discovering a forged order in its name.
- Fake orders submitted to the Department of Telecommunications lacked verification in court records.
- Delhi Police are investigating separate fraudulent notices sent to platform X.
- The Allahabad High Court has demanded an affidavit regarding police investigation delays.
The Department of Telecommunications published the directives on its website alongside copies of the purported court orders. However, Scroll could only independently locate the September 2 directive.
Neither of these two takedown orders appear in the online registration records of the respective High Courts.
High courts identify fraudulent legal documents
Separately, the Rajasthan High Court registrar stated that the order in question "appears to be fraudulent" and does not exist on the court's server.
Individuals linked to forged submissions
Separately, an individual identified as advocate-on-record Aryan Chaudhary emailed a fake Rajasthan High Court order to the telecommunications department on July 19. The email address used for this submission bounced back as the recipient was not found.
Delhi Police investigate separate impersonation case
These notices sought to block the accounts of the Internet Freedom Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Centre.
The platform stated the messages were sent by an "imposter".
Allahabad High Court critiques police investigation delays
Although a chargesheet was filed on April 21, 2025, the jurisdictional court ordered further investigation by a Circle Officer.
The petitioner claims this secondary investigation is currently "hanging fire" without a report being submitted. The High Court noted that more than eight months have passed since the February 21 order for this further investigation, yet authorities have failed to conclude the probe.
The jurisdictional court had previously found the initial police chargesheet to be "unbelievable and unnatural".
This affidavit must explain how to address the issue of investigations remaining pending for long periods. The court also requested that the document indicate whether a specific time frame for completing investigations can be established or suggest other ways to remedy the delay.
Legal framework for investigation timelines
The High Court examined Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding investigation timelines. While Section 193(2) of the BNSS mandates a two-month limit for specific sexual offences, there is no set time frame for other investigations.
Section 193(1) of the BNSS requires all investigations to be finished "without unnecessary delay," and Section 193(3)(ii) requires police to update informants or victims on investigation progress within 90 days.
The court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to include in a personal affidavit the number of cases where investigation progress was communicated to victims or informants as required by Section 193 of the BNSS, specifically for FIRs in Sultanpur district. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on December 8, and the court ordered that the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) must appear in person if the personal affidavit is not submitted.
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google