India Fake Court Orders Led to 129 Website Blocks in 2026, Reuters Finds

India's government ordered internet providers to block 129 illegal betting websites this year on the strength of two state high court orders that never existed, a Reuters investigation has found, in a forgery that slipped through one of the world's strictest content-removal systems and has now triggered a police investigation.

The two orders, supposedly from the High Courts of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, bore the courts' seals, a judge's name and a QR code — and passed through official channels unnoticed until Reuters asked questions.

Key Points

• Reuters found two purported high court orders behind the blocking of 129 betting websites were fake; neither appears in the courts' online registration records.
• India's Department of Telecommunications issued blocking directions on July 21 and September 2, telling providers to remove 34 websites, then block 95 more.
• The Allahabad High Court found its order fake and filed a police complaint on November 6; police are investigating unknown persons for alleged forgery and cheating.
• The fake Allahabad order, dated August 14 and signed in the name of "Justice Garima Prashad", carried the court's logo and seal plus a QR code leading only to a one-line case number.
• It is not clear who created the fake orders or whether artificial intelligence was used; both remained on the telecoms ministry's website as of November 11.

What Happened

The first fake order arrived by email at 8:59 p.m. on Sunday, July 19, sent to the Department of Telecommunications by someone signed "Aryan Chaudhary", described as an advocate-on-record. It purported to be a Rajasthan High Court order demanding execution within 24 hours, issued "under my hand and the seal of this Hon'ble Court registrar". A Reuters query to Chaudhary's email bounced back as "Recipient not found".

Two days later, the government told internet providers to remove 34 betting websites "as specified in the court order as per the enclosed list". The order relied on a provision of Indian information technology law allowing takedowns in the interest of national security.

The second fake order, supposedly from the Allahabad High Court, was sent to Indian officials on August 22 by a man who identified himself as advocate Kartikey Pandey. A Reuters query to Pandey's email received no response. After exchanges among officials, including a request for an "action taken report", an official told providers on September 2 to "take immediate necessary action in respect of blocking access" to 95 betting websites.

Between them, the two orders affected 129 websites featuring gambling, illegal under Indian law. Reuters could not establish who created the orders, which bore blue court seals with India's national emblem. The telecoms department did not respond to Reuters' queries.

Background: India's Website-Blocking System

India operates one of the world's strictest official content-removal mechanisms, and the government has often faced criticism for ordering takedowns to silence dissent. It maintains removals are ordered only in the public interest, to ensure law and order.

The system depends on trust: when a court order arrives, officials act on it. The Rajasthan order's 24-hour deadline left little room for checks, and the Allahabad order's QR code — meant to let anyone verify it — led only to a page showing the one-line case number "Writ -- A 30480/2026".

The episode is not an isolated warning. India's Supreme Court in July set aside a tribunal's orders that relied on non-existent judgments, and a US judge recently disqualified lawyers over fabricated legal citations. X told an Indian court last week that police directives it sent to two free speech groups were fake.

India Fake Court Orders: How the Forgeries Slipped Through

What makes the forgeries remarkable is how ordinary they looked. Both carried the blue seals and national emblem of genuine orders, and both were published on the telecoms department's website, where they remained as of November 11.

The Rajasthan order was exposed when Reuters checked the courts' online registration records and found no trace of it. The court's registrar then said by email that the order bearing its name "appears to be fraudulent" and did not exist on its server.

The Allahabad order unravelled the same way. The high court found it fake and filed a police complaint on November 6, prompted by Reuters' findings, according to police case documents.

Senior state cybercrime official Ghanshyam Yadav told Reuters by telephone: "It is fake. It is not a genuine order from High Court of Allahabad." He said no arrests had been made.

Reactions and Quotes

The Rajasthan registrar was blunt, saying the order bearing the court's name "appears to be fraudulent" — undercutting the basis for the first 34 removals.

Yadav was equally direct about the Allahabad order: "It is fake. It is not a genuine order from High Court of Allahabad," he said, adding that no arrests had been made.

Police documents say Justice Prashad's office confirmed that "no such order has been passed by Her Ladyship".

India's Supreme Court warned last year that fabrication "bearing forged signatures of Judges strikes at the very foundation of public trust".

Why It Matters

The forgeries matter because the mechanism they exploited is supposed to be the safeguard. Court orders are the gold standard for takedowns — treated as beyond question, which is why a convincing fake can do so much damage.

Reuters noted the forgeries could affect the online presence of any organisation in the country, not just betting sites. The same channel that removed 129 gambling sites could, with a different forged order, target a news outlet, a business or a critic.

Courts worldwide are wrestling with fabricated legal material. Here the fabrication was not a citation in a filing but an entire court order that moved a government department to act.

What Happens Next

Police in Uttar Pradesh are investigating the Allahabad forgery, with a case registered against unknown persons. No arrests have been made, and it is unclear who created the orders or whether AI was used.

Attention now turns to the telecoms department: whether it removes the fake orders, reviews other directions based on emailed court orders, and adds verification — such as checking a court's online registry — before ordering a block.

Related coverage: US court lets service on India's NSA Doval via Delhi courts | Supreme Court clears Big Bend border wall | RAF Fairford terror plot charges

Frequently Asked Questions

How many websites were blocked on the fake court orders?

129 illegal betting websites: 34 removed after a direction on July 21 and 95 more blocked after one on September 2.

Which courts were impersonated?

The High Courts of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (the Allahabad High Court). Neither order appears in the courts' online registration records.

How were the fake orders discovered?

Reuters found neither order in the courts' online records. The Rajasthan registrar called the order "appears to be fraudulent", and the Allahabad High Court filed a police complaint on November 6.

Has anyone been arrested?

No. Police opened an investigation against unknown persons for alleged forgery and cheating; a senior cybercrime official said no arrests had been made.

Is gambling legal in India?

No. The 129 sites featured gambling, illegal under Indian law — the reason the blocking directions were issued.