The action, disclosed on Tuesday, follows online claims about deaths and police firing during protests over electoral roll revisions. Investigators say some material was designed to spread rumours, inflame public sentiment and disrupt law and order. The allegations against individual account operators remain under investigation.
Police officials said the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations unit was examining the circulation of misleading photographs, altered videos and artificially generated content. Investigators are seeking to establish who created the material, how it spread and whether accounts operating outside the country coordinated its distribution.
A preliminary assessment identified posts linked to handles believed to be based in Pakistan. Police said several such accounts had been deactivated, but did not publicly identify their operators or provide evidence establishing coordination with any government agency. The geographical origin and responsibility for individual posts have not been independently established.
Additional Commissioner of Police Sanjay Bhatia said officers were monitoring online platforms and acting when they encountered material considered false, manipulated or potentially criminal. The scrutiny covers images and videos as well as written claims about confrontations between demonstrators and security personnel.
The police have also approached X seeking removal of objectionable content connected with the demonstrations. Officials described the takedowns as measures to prevent unverified claims from provoking unrest, rather than as findings of guilt against everyone who shared the disputed material.
One allegation attracting particular attention claimed that police had opened fire during an opposition march towards the Supreme Court on Monday, killing five people. Delhi Police publicly rejected the claim and warned users against circulating it. No verified evidence supporting the alleged fatalities has emerged.
The force identified the account @indiantiwari01 in a public warning, accusing it of distributing doctored material, older footage and fabricated narratives. It said spreading malicious rumours could attract criminal proceedings and urged people not to amplify the specific allegation about firing.
Police also said accounts operating from Pakistan had circulated claims of multiple protest deaths on October 10. Investigators are examining whether those messages were subsequently repeated by other users and whether altered footage was presented as documentation of events in Delhi.
The digital investigation is unfolding alongside demonstrations challenging the Election Commission’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties and protest organisers contend that the exercise risks excluding eligible voters and have demanded Kumar’s resignation. The Election Commission has rejected allegations that the revision is intended to manipulate electoral outcomes.
Monday’s march, involving opposition leaders and supporters, headed towards the Supreme Court amid substantial police deployment and restrictions on gatherings in central Delhi. Police and protesters have offered competing accounts of confrontations, detentions and the handling of the crowds.
Separate criminal cases have been registered over alleged breaches of prohibitory orders and damage to barricades during the march. Those proceedings concern conduct at protest sites and should not be confused with the four cases concerning allegedly misleading online material.
The response to the demonstrations has also prompted questions about the treatment of journalists and activists. Press organisations have criticised detentions and alleged excessive force, while police have maintained that security measures were necessary to manage gatherings and protect public order.
The online investigation raises a distinct issue: determining whether posts contain demonstrably false assertions, misleadingly edited material or legitimate documentation of contentious events. Authorities have not released a comprehensive public inventory of the removed posts, making it difficult to assess each moderation decision individually.
The distinction is significant because footage from demonstrations can circulate without its original context, while authentic recordings may also become subjects of disagreement. Establishing provenance requires examining timestamps, original recordings and the circumstances of publication.
Officials have not disclosed the precise legal provisions invoked in all four misinformation cases, the number of people formally identified as suspects or whether any arrests have resulted directly from the online investigation. Nor have they provided a detailed breakdown of removals by platform.
Investigators continue reviewing suspicious accounts and archived posts, including material that appeared from October 10 onwards. Police have urged social media users to verify claims before sharing them, particularly messages alleging deaths, shootings or fresh confrontations at protest locations.
