Mumbai Police Order 24 X Accounts to Delete Bhatia Documentary; Free Speech Row Erupts
Mumbai Police have issued legal notices to 24 account holders on X, formerly Twitter, asking them to remove or disable access to a documentary posted by tech entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia, after a complaint that the content carried false and disparaging claims about a prominent business conglomerate.
According to the notices, dated October 18, 2026, cyber police received a formal complaint alleging that several handles had published "highly objectionable content" targeting the conglomerate. The links cited in the notices directed to Mr Bhatia's X account. The documentary was reported to contain allegations concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani.
The notices said the posts contained "false, misleading and disparaging statements and allegations" against the company, circulated "without any factual or lawful basis", causing continuing harm to its reputation, goodwill and public image. Their publication, the notices said, violated platform guidelines and amounted to offences under Section 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace) and Section 356 (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The notices asked the platform and the account holders to urgently review the posts and remove or disable access to them. Several users complied and deleted video clips. Others posted copies of the police notice on their handles, calling the action overreach and unjust.
Mr Bhatia, the Indian-American entrepreneur who co-founded the free web-based email service Hotmail.com in 1996, confirmed on X that he had complied. "Mumbai Police asked me to take down certain highly objectionable tweets. I have complied and removed them," he wrote.
He said the tweet in question "merely pointed out alleged corruption at the highest levels of power", and that the agency appeared to find the corruption less objectionable than the act of exposing it. "When pointing out wrongdoing becomes a greater offense than the wrongdoing itself, who is the law really protecting?" he asked.
In further posts, he said he regretted that citizens' fundamental right to free speech was being curtailed, and that he was "deeply disappointed" that people feared speaking about what they saw. "A nation cannot progress when speaking the truth requires courage," he said.
What the notices mean
A police direction to take down online content is an administrative step, not a judicial finding of guilt. Defamation and intentional insult are criminal offences under the BNS that must be established before a court, and those named in a complaint have the right to contest the allegations. The notices reviewed here do not record any finding that the claims in the documentary were untrue; they reflect the complainant's allegations.
Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, free speech is protected but subject to reasonable restrictions, including on grounds such as defamation and public order. Courts have repeatedly been asked to strike a balance in takedown disputes, with petitioners arguing that swift removal orders can chill legitimate speech and complainants contending that platforms must act on defamatory material.
The episode has revived that debate in India: how quickly content concerning public figures should be removed, and who should bear the burden of proving a claim true. Supporters of the notices argue that reputation is a legal right and that complaints of defamation deserve a prompt response. Critics argue that the threshold for removal should be high when the subject is accountability of those in power, and that contested claims are best tested in court rather than settled by deletion.
