Sabeer Bhatia video: Mumbai Police notices over 24 X posts sharing it

Mumbai Police have sent legal notices over at least 24 posts on X that shared a video essay by entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia, asking the account holders and the platform to review the posts and remove or disable access to them, according to reports published on October 21 and 22, 2026. The notices, dated October 18, invoke Sections 352 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deal with intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of the peace and with defamation. They describe the posts as containing "false, misleading, and disparaging statements" about a "well-known company". Bhatia, a tech entrepreneur, said he had removed the posts he was asked to take down but criticised the action as a curb on free expression.

For young people who live much of their lives online, this case is a practical lesson: sharing or reposting someone else's video can bring a legal notice even if you did not make it. Defamation, meaning a false statement that harms someone's reputation, is a criminal offence under Section 356 of the BNS as well as a civil wrong. The law does not only look at the original speaker; a person who republishes the statement can also be asked to answer for it. That is why the police wrote to the people who shared the clip, not only to Bhatia.

At the same time, the episode has revived a long-running debate about free speech online. Critics of the notices argue that defamation and public-order laws are being used to pull down political criticism, and that sending notices to ordinary users who share a video has a chilling effect: people stop posting out of fear. Bhatia himself said the action curtailed citizens' right to free expression. Those who back such action argue that platforms should not become channels for spreading false claims that damage reputations, and that the law provides a process for complaints. Because the claims in the video have not been tested in court, neither side's account can be taken as established.

The case also shows how content is removed in India. A notice under criminal law to users and a platform is one route; another is a blocking order issued through the government's online system for platforms. X has challenged that system in court in the past, arguing that it threatens free speech, and a High Court ruled in the government's favour in 2025. Young users rarely see these processes, but they decide what stays visible on the apps they use every day.

What should a user do if they receive such a notice? Sensible first steps are to read it carefully, note any deadline, keep a copy, and get legal advice before responding. A notice asking for a post to be taken down is not a court verdict, and it does not by itself mean the user has committed an offence.

Short-term: Some users have already deleted the clip, and others may avoid sharing similar political content. X has to decide how to respond to the request to disable access to the posts.

Long-term: The case adds to the question of how far criminal defamation and public-order laws should reach into ordinary users' sharing, and may feed into wider legal challenges over online takedowns in India.

Who is affected: X users who shared the video; content creators and digital commentators; social media platforms operating in India; and young users deciding what to post or repost.

Questions and Answers