Police seek X user details in FSSAI defamation case
In a fresh escalation of a high-profile social media expose, the Delhi Police has formally requested X (formerly Twitter) to furnish full identifying details of popular whistle-blower-style accounts, including @khurpenchh and @YTKDIndia.
The move comes as part of a criminal defamation investigation triggered by alleged irregularities in the appointment of FSSAI Director Sweety Behera. The police letter, dated April 1, 2026, and signed by Inspector Ghanshyam Kishore, Station House Officer of IP Estate Police Station, Central Delhi, invokes Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
It directs X Inc. (headquartered in San Francisco) to provide urgent contact information, including names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, IP logs, and login details for four specific posts and handles linked to the controversy.
The case stems from FIR No. 135/26, registered on or around March 24, 2026, at IP Estate Police Station under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for defamation and Section 72A of the Information Technology Act.
According to the police, multiple X handles published posts with “malicious intent” that defamed a senior FSSAI officer identified in the posts as Sweety Behera, damaged her reputation, and created public unrest by questioning her appointment.
The posts in question, dated March 9-10, 2026, were made by @khurpenchh, a vocal account known for exposing alleged irregularities in government recruitments, UPSC selections, and bureaucratic appointments and its sister handle @YTKDIndia.
In a detailed thread on March 10, @khurpenchh directly addressed Behera, “Your name is Sweety Bohra (Behera). You are posted as Director in FSSAI, but some people are raising questions on your appointment. In the recent selection process, your experience letter and CTC criteria were found deficient. How did you get selected?”
The thread highlighted three main allegations: Discrepancy in experience: Behera’s application claimed Nestlé India service from 2006 to 2020, but her service certificate reportedly showed she joined in August 2007, an 11-month shortfall.
Missing supervisory experience: The supervisory role was not supported by documents in her dossier. FSSAI allegedly granted relaxations in experience and CTC criteria despite rejecting other SC-category candidates for similar gaps. Recruitment Rules 2018 reportedly have no provision for such relaxations in CTC.
The account shared what it claimed were internal FSSAI recruitment committee documents flagging these issues and promised further exposés, stating, “Tomorrow four more people in FSSAI won’t sleep.”
An earlier March 9 post had listed Sweety Behera among six FSSAI officials under scrutiny for alleged “incomplete and fake” ways of securing high-paying jobs.
The account vowed to continue, stating it had already given “hints” to FSSAI to correct irregularities and that more revelations, including on the GST department, were coming. It received strong support from journalists and influencers who criticised the FIR as an attempt to suppress exposure of systemic issues.
The police letter marks the investigation’s next step, identifying the real individuals behind the anonymous and pseudonymous handles.
Under Indian law, such Section 94 notices are routine in cyber-defamation and IT Act cases once specific posts are traced but real identities remain unknown. As of now, no charges have been framed against the account holders, and the matter remains under investigation.
The episode has once again spotlighted the tension between social-media whistleblowing and official responses to claims of irregularities in public appointments. Whether the documents shared were authentic stolen records (as alleged in the FIR) or legitimate public-interest evidence will be decided by the courts.
