India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) told internet service providers to block 129 betting websites this year on the strength of two High Court orders that turned out to be fake, Reuters reported on November 111. The blocks were ordered on July 21 and September 21. Police have registered a case of forgery and cheating against unknown persons1.
The first order, attributed to the Rajasthan High Court, reached the DoT by email at 8:59 PM on July 191. An "Aryan Chaudhary," describing himself as an advocate-on-record, signed the email, and Reuters' email to that address bounced back1. The order cited the IT Act provision allowing blocking in the interest of national security and asked recipients to act within 24 hours1. Two days later, on July 21, the DoT told internet service providers to block 34 websites1.
The second order, dated August 14 and attributed to the Allahabad High Court, claimed to come from a case that a "Sahil Singh" filed against MeitY's Director General (Cyber Law), the DoT, and hosting providers and domain registrars1. It granted an "ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction" to block 95 websites running "fake public Indian Premier League (IPL) match streaming and digital betting operations"1. Kartikey Pandey was named as the petitioner's counsel; he emailed the order to officials on August 22, and after several exchanges among officials the DoT told internet providers on September 2 to block the 95 websites1. The order carries a seal and a QR code, but the QR code led to a random webpage, Reuters found1.
| Court named on order | Date received by DoT | Websites blocked | Date ISPs told to block |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajasthan High Court | July 19 | 34 | July 21 |
| Allahabad High Court | August 14 (order date) | 95 | September 2 |
The Allahabad High Court found its order was fake and filed a police complaint on November 6; the order carries the name of "Justice Garima Prashad" as its signatory, and her office told police that "no such order has been passed by Her Ladyship"1. The Rajasthan High Court's registrar told Reuters the order bearing its name "appears to be fraudulent" and does not exist on its server1. Neither order appears in the courts' online records, according to Reuters1. The DoT did not respond to Reuters, and both fake orders were still on its website as of November 111.
The DoT has said it will review its working procedures and consider adding extra verification before carrying out website takedowns2. Police in Uttar Pradesh have asked the DoT for its content management system and digital logs to trace how the department handled the forged order and to identify those responsible, according to network crime official Ghanshyam Yadav2. The national security provision the Rajasthan order cited is Section 69A of the IT Act, which MeitY administers through its designated officer and a review committee1.
"MeitY cannot simply play the role of a courier, like it says it does in case of the Sahyog portal. Any fake order being delivered to any platform through MeitY is its responsibility, not that of the platform or of the sender."
What it means for players
The 129 sites were blocked as illegal betting operations, and the blocks themselves remain in place; what has collapsed is the paperwork behind them, not the restrictions1. For anyone in India using online betting sites, the practical position is unchanged: the domains named in the two orders are still unreachable through Indian internet service providers, and the underlying legal status of real-money online betting in India has not been altered by this case1. The episode does show how quickly a block can be ordered on documents that were never checked against court records, which cuts both ways: the same gap could be used against a site that is not illegal1. Reuters could not establish who forged the orders or whether anyone checked them before the DoT ordered the blocks1. Details of how India's regulators and licensing framework treats such orders, and which operators appear on official blacklists and warning lists, are separate from this case and have not been changed by it.
What happens next
Police have registered a case of forgery and cheating against unknown persons and have asked the DoT for its content management system and digital logs1. The DoT has said it will review its procedures and consider adding verification steps before takedowns2. It has not been reported whether MeitY acted on the DoT's request to act on the Allahabad order, whether either order was checked against court records, or whether the Section 69A review committee examined the blocks1.
Sources2 sources
- 129 betting websites blocked on fake court orders, medianama.com
- 法庭命令都有假？印度官員受騙查封129網站 警展開刑事調查, stheadline.com
