The Delhi Police on April 1, 2026, issued a notice to X (formerly Twitter) seeking details of certain X accounts, including the mobile numbers used for account registration, IP logs, ports accessed, and recovery email IDs.

The notice was issued as part of an action arising from an FIR filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Director Sweety Behera on March 24, 2026.

What does the letter say?

As per the Delhi Police letter to X, Behera, in her FIR, alleged that certain posts were published by these handles on X with “malicious intent to defame her and damage her reputation in society”. She further alleged that certain highly confidential details relating to her were also stolen from some places.

As per the police, a case has been registered against the social media accounts under sections 316(4) (Criminal breach of trust) and 3(5) (Common intention) of BNS and section 72A (disclosing personal information) of the IT Act. The case is being investigated by the IP Estate police station in Central Delhi.

The letter states, “In this case the alleged by the victim that certain posts were published on Twitter by multiple handles with malicious intent to defame her and damage her reputation in society, thereby creating chaos before the public, she further alleged that some of the details were also stolen from certain places, which were supposed to be highly confidential.”

The letter mentions the X posts in relation to which the case has been filed. All those posts are related to the appointment of FSSAI Director Sweety Behera, alleging corruption and irregularities.

What did the X accounts say?

The FIR relates to different posts made by these handles on X, raising questions about Behera’s appointment as the FSSAI Director. The X accounts alleged that Behera did not fulfil the eligibility requirements for the appointment as FSSAI Director. According to the X accounts, Behera showed her experience of working at Nestlé India from 2006-2020, while the records showed that she joined Nestlé India in 2007.

They alleged that Behera did not submit any proof for the 5 years of supervisory experience required as part of the eligibility criteria. In addition to that, Behera’s documents allegedly show ₹18L CTC for one year, while the minimum requirement is two years.

The X accounts alleged that the eligibility criteria were relaxed to clear her way for appointment as the FSSAI Director. They claimed that CTC relaxations were granted to Behera in violation of the Recruitment Rules 2018. It is further alleged that her appointment was justified by citing that no suitable candidates were available, while three other candidates belonging to the Scheduled Class category appeared for the interview.

The Delhi Police letter to X mentions the URL of several X posts by @khurpenchh, @gemsofbabus_, and @YTKDIndia on X, raising suspicions about Behera’s appointment in FSSAI.

Two posts by Nalini Unagar (@NalinisKitchen) are also mentioned, but they have been deleted now. Therefore, it is known what offensive content she had posted. She confirmed that she has been named in the FIR.

OpIndia contacted SHO, IP Estate Police Station, Inspector Ghanshyam Kishore, for seeking details regarding the FIR and the notice, but he refused to provide any details, saying he is not authorised to speak. Moreover, the FIR registered on 24th March has not been uploaded yet. Therefore, exact details of the case could not be ascertained.

But going the content of the letter and the mentioned X posts, it can be confirmed that the case relates to allegations of irregularities in the appointment of FSSAI director Sweety Behera, and that the FIR was registered on her complaint.

The social media users posted internal documents related to her appointment, leading to the invocation of BNS and IT Act sections related to Criminal breach of trust and disclosure of personal information. It is not known how such internal documents were accessed by the X users.

Account @YTKDIndia, which had initially posted the allegations and the documents, claimed after the FIR was filed that the content was derived entirely from ‘a verified internal inquiry report of the FSSAI’ on the director.

The account added, “it is clarified that we neither conducted the inquiry ourselves nor introduced any additions, alterations, or personal interpretations to its contents. Reporting was strictly based on the material available in the report, presented fairly, accurately, and without any intention to malign the reputation of any individual, and therefore does not constitute any offence, while the applicability of Section 72A IT Act does not arise.”