India blocked 129 betting websites on two fake court orders, Reuters finds — police open a forgery investigation
India's government ordered internet providers to block 129 betting websites this year under two high court orders that Reuters has found were fake. Neither order appears in the courts' own records: the Rajasthan High Court's registrar told Reuters the order in its name "appears to be fraudulent", and the Allahabad High Court has filed a police complaint, opening a forgery and cheating investigation against unknown persons. The telecoms department, which issued the blocking directions, did not respond to Reuters. Who created the fake orders is not known.
Checking in progress
This story is still being checked. Claims below are published as claims — never dressed as facts — and each one moves only when the evidence earns it.
- Collecting reportsDone
- Grouping the versionsDone
- Checking claims5 of 5 claims checked
- 4Human gateWe are here
5 of 5 claims checked so far · step 4 of 4: Human gate
Key points
- Two blocking directions — 34 sites on 21 July and 95 on 2 September — rested on purported Rajasthan and Allahabad high court orders that do not exist in the courts' records.
- The Rajasthan registrar told Reuters the order in its name "appears to be fraudulent"; the Allahabad court has filed a police complaint.
- Police have opened a forgery and cheating investigation against unknown persons; no arrests have been made.
Show more (1)
- The telecoms department did not respond to Reuters, and who created the fake orders — and whether AI was used — is not known.
What happened
India's content-removal system is among the world's strictest, and the government has faced criticism for ordering takedowns of posts and sites, while maintaining it acts only in the public interest. The fake orders entered that system by email and were acted on within days — the Rajasthan direction followed two days after the email arrived — under a provision of IT law that allows takedowns in the interest of national security.
The case is not isolated in kind: India's Supreme Court justices said last year that fabricating orders bearing forged judges' signatures "strikes at the very foundation of public trust", and last week the platform X told an Indian court that police directives it had passed to two free-speech groups were found to be fake.
What we know / what we don't know yet
What we know
- That the two orders were fake, on the courts' own responses and the absence of both from their records.
- That 129 betting websites were blocked under the two directions, and that a police forgery and cheating investigation is open in the Allahabad case.
- That the telecoms department has not responded, and both orders were still on its website on Wednesday.
What we don't know yet
- Who created the fake orders, and whether AI tools were used to generate them.
- Whether other blocking directions rest on orders that have not been checked against court records.
- Whether the blocked sites will be restored, and what verification step, if any, the department will add.
Claim by claim
Show all claims (5)
Why this label: The directions, their dates and the site counts are from the department's own published communications, as reviewed and reported by Reuters in its investigation, read in full.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The records check is Reuters' own review; the registrar's words are the court's own response to the agency. The finding rests on that review and that response together.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The complaint, the investigation and the judge's office's confirmation are from the police case documents Reuters reviewed; Yadav's words are his own, on the record to Reuters.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: These details are from the published correspondence on the telecoms department's website and the orders themselves, as set out in Reuters' investigation. They describe the documents; they do not identify who made them.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The department's non-response and the orders' continued presence on its website are stated in Reuters' investigation; the creator and any AI role are carried here as unestablished, not as findings.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why it matters
A forged court order was enough to make the state block 129 websites — which means the same route could in principle be used against any organisation's online presence. The investigation now has to establish who sent the orders and whether the checking step that failed here has failed elsewhere.
Background
Show the background timeline (6)
An email carrying the purported Rajasthan High Court order reaches the telecoms department in the evening.
The department directs providers to block 34 betting websites, as specified in the order.
The purported Allahabad High Court order is dated, signed in the name of Justice Garima Prashad.
The department directs providers to block 95 more betting websites under the second order.
The Allahabad High Court files a police complaint after Reuters' questions; a forgery and cheating investigation opens.
Reuters publishes its investigation; a senior cybercrime official confirms on the record that the Allahabad order is fake.
Update history
No silent edits. Every change is written here, with its time.
- Latest
Published in Checking state — the two orders are confirmed fake by the courts' own responses, and who created them is still unknown.