Forged High Court Orders were used to block 129 betting websites in India, Reuters reports

At least 129 online betting websites were blocked across India over the past few months after the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) received forged judicial orders that were presented as if they came from the Rajasthan High Court and the Allahabad High Court, according to a Reuters investigation. For PSPs and payment partners in India’s high-risk stack, the important part is not the stunt itself; it is that India’s content-blocking process was apparently triggered by documents that cleared administrative checks before anyone noticed the court orders did not exist.

1. The DoT issued two blocking directives to ISPs based on emailed copies of the supposed court orders: one on 21 July, 2026, and another on 2 September, 2026. Reuters says those directives were attached to public disclosures on the DoT website, but cross-checks against the official online registration records of both courts showed that neither order was real.
2. The first forged order was used to block 34 betting platforms. On 19 July, someone identifying himself as “Aryan Chaudhary,” claiming to be an Advocate-on-Record at the Rajasthan High Court, emailed the document to government officials. Two days later, on 21 July, the DoT instructed ISPs to restrict access to the 34 sites. The Rajasthan High Court registrar later confirmed by email to Reuters that the order did not exist on the court’s servers and appeared fraudulent.
3. The second wave involved the Allahabad High Court and 95 websites. On 22 August, a person posing as advocate “Kartikey Pandey” sent officials a forged order dated 14 August and allegedly signed by Justice Garima Prashad. The document included a QR code and court branding to make it look authentic, but scanning the code redirected to an unrelated webpage showing a single case reference: Writ - A 30480/2026.
4. After internal correspondence among DoT officials seeking an “action taken report,” the ministry instructed ISPs on 2 September to immediately block access to the 95 websites. Reuters says these included betting platforms and sites streaming purported fake Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. Most of the domains reportedly blocked in this round appear to have been mirror domains of the Mahadev Online Betting App syndicate.
5. The Allahabad High Court administration carried out an internal verification after questions about the 14 August directive. Justice Prashad’s office confirmed that no such order had ever been passed. On 6 November, the High Court administration lodged a formal police FIR in Uttar Pradesh, and a cybercrime probe is now underway.

The practical takeaway for high-risk operators is straightforward: in India, blocking actions can move fast once a notice lands with the right ministry desk, and the verification layer is only as strong as the document controls around it. If your traffic depends on Indian-facing domains, mirror sites, or payment routing tied to betting content, this is the sort of procedural weakness that can create abrupt access and settlement risk without any fresh court hearing visible to the market.