Div retweeted
Delhi Police asks X to take down IFF's account and posts. IFF will challenge the notices in court unless they are withdrawn.
The Delhi Police has asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation's account, six of its posts, the accounts of SFLC and @geoblockedindia, and posts he ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The posts document and comment on a legal notice sent in the RSS's name to IFF, SFLC and @geoblockedindia, which demanded that the three stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders. IFF received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of 3 November 2026.
IFF calls on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. If they are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court.
What has happened
On 29 October 2026 at 9:54 PM, IFF, SFLC and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page "legal notice" said to be issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the three to stop opposing the government's blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm in writing within seven days that they would comply. It was signed by an unnamed "Authorised Signatory". Several RSS office-bearers have since said on X that the notice is not authentic. IFF replied to the notice, wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it, and published both the notice and its reply on 30 October.
On 31 October 2026 at 8:06 PM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, filed an "Illegal Content Report" with X (reference LD-321926). It listed two posts: IFF's post of 30 October on the notice, and SFLC post of the same day. The stated reason was that the posts are "defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". The boxes for "safety/security", "defamation" and "other" were ticked. The fields for the nature of the court order and court order details were left empty. The desired action was "Remove/withhold content".
On 1 November 2026, a second notice arrived in the RSS's name. It said the matter had been handed to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF's X account and suspend the organisations. The Delhi Police had made its first request to X the previous evening. IFF did not know this until X told it on 3 November.
On 2 November 2026 at 8:51 AM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) filed a second notice with X (reference LD-322956). It lists 40 URLs. Thirty-seven are posts. Three are the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. This time the boxes for "Hate speech", "defamation", "safety/security", "enforcement of court order" and "other" were all ticked. The court order fields were again left empty. The stated reason reads: "The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours."
The 16 other users are @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind. Their posts, as far as IFF can tell, comment on the notice or on the notice about it.
X forwarded both notice to IFF on 3 November 2026, at 8:47 AM and 10:03 AM, saying it was doing so "in the interest of transparency" and that IFF may wish to seek legal counsel and challenge the request in court. X's emails do not say that it has acted on the requests. The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police's Cyber Crime unit, one of them against the whole of the @geoblockedindia account.
IFF's position
IFF condemns this legal action. A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship. The notices would deliver exactly what the notice asked for as they would also remove the accounts of the three groups in India that keep public records of what is blocked, and of who ordered it.
The posts in question are about a legal notice sent to us. They quote it, criticise how it was drafted, and say that we will carry on with our work. A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it and that is not defamation of the sender.
In the three weeks before the first notice, IFF assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India. SFLC's Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first 29 days of October. @geoblockedindia publishes the orders behind such blocks when platforms disclose them. None of this is unlawful. Documenting censorship and challenging it in court is what the Constitution expects of citizens.
IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court.
Why the reports are unlawful
Defamation is not a police matter. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-cognizable and bailable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no court can take cognizance of it except on a complaint by the person aggrieved.
Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without an order of a Magistrate. The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) is not the person aggrieved. The notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no order of any Magistrate. Whether a statement is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing its author, with the defences of truth, fair comment and good faith available to that author.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation on the strength of these safeguards. A police officer who asks a platform to remove speech as defamatory has decided the question himself, without a complainant, a court or a hearing.
The posts are protected comment. Exceptions 1 to 3 to Section 356(1) protect the truth published for the public good, opinion on the public conduct of public servants, and opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question. The posts publish a notice that was sent to us and give our opinion of it. The RSS, if it sent the notice, chose to enter a public question. If it did not, the posts defame no one.
Further, Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) do not permit this. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary acquires "actual knowledge" only through a court order, or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are being committed. The court said that it would be difficult for intermediaries to judge the legitimacy of the millions of requests they receive, and that the burden must not be placed on them. Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in November 2025 and February 2026, now requires the intimation to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Deputy Inspector General, to be reasoned, and to specify the legal basis and the nature of the unlawful act, subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer. The three-hour window the notice invokes applies to a lawful order that meets these conditions. A web form that ticks "hate speech" and "enforcement of court order" while leaving the court order fields blank, and that gives one sentence of reasons for 40 URLs, is not such an order.
The notices by the Delhi Police are disproportionate. They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively. They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on speech must be necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available, and that orders restricting speech must be published and reasoned. Removing an organisation's entire account for criticising a legal notice fails each of these tests.
The effect is to silence documentation of censorship and providing legal aid to Indian internet users. The accounts named are those that record blocking orders in India. The notice asked them to stop. A takedown request that accomplishes the demand of an anonymous private notice is not law enforcement. It is the use of state power for a private end, which Article 14 forbids.
Our demands
1. To the Delhi Police: Withdraw reports LD-321926 and LD-322956 and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and to IFF.
2. To the Delhi Police: Disclose the complaint on which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed, and whether any order of a Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS exists. Disclose every request made to any platform in this matter, including those made by the Cyber Crime unit against @geoblockedindia.
3. To X: Do not act on the reports. If any content is withheld in India, tell the affected user before acting, give them the full request, and name the legal basis. Publish both reports to the Lumen database, as the reporting form itself contemplates.
4. To the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs: Have the Secretary-level review required by Rule 3(1)(d) examine these intimations, and tell police forces that Rule 3(1)(d) is not a remedy for defamation, which the law reserves to the person aggrieved and to the courts.
5. To the RSS: State publicly whether it authorised either notice or any complaint to the police. If it did not, say so to the Delhi Police.
If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court. We will continue to document blocking orders, to publish them, and to provide legal assistance to anyone whose account or post is withheld in India. Nothing in these notices changes that.
The Delhi Police has asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation's account, six of its posts, the accounts of SFLC and @geoblockedindia, and posts he ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The posts document and comment on a legal notice sent in the RSS's name to IFF, SFLC and @geoblockedindia, which demanded that the three stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders. IFF received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of 3 November 2026.
IFF calls on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. If they are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court.
What has happened
On 29 October 2026 at 9:54 PM, IFF, SFLC and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page "legal notice" said to be issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the three to stop opposing the government's blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm in writing within seven days that they would comply. It was signed by an unnamed "Authorised Signatory". Several RSS office-bearers have since said on X that the notice is not authentic. IFF replied to the notice, wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it, and published both the notice and its reply on 30 October.
On 31 October 2026 at 8:06 PM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, filed an "Illegal Content Report" with X (reference LD-321926). It listed two posts: IFF's post of 30 October on the notice, and SFLC post of the same day. The stated reason was that the posts are "defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". The boxes for "safety/security", "defamation" and "other" were ticked. The fields for the nature of the court order and court order details were left empty. The desired action was "Remove/withhold content".
On 1 November 2026, a second notice arrived in the RSS's name. It said the matter had been handed to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF's X account and suspend the organisations. The Delhi Police had made its first request to X the previous evening. IFF did not know this until X told it on 3 November.
On 2 November 2026 at 8:51 AM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) filed a second notice with X (reference LD-322956). It lists 40 URLs. Thirty-seven are posts. Three are the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. This time the boxes for "Hate speech", "defamation", "safety/security", "enforcement of court order" and "other" were all ticked. The court order fields were again left empty. The stated reason reads: "The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours."
The 16 other users are @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind. Their posts, as far as IFF can tell, comment on the notice or on the notice about it.
X forwarded both notice to IFF on 3 November 2026, at 8:47 AM and 10:03 AM, saying it was doing so "in the interest of transparency" and that IFF may wish to seek legal counsel and challenge the request in court. X's emails do not say that it has acted on the requests. The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police's Cyber Crime unit, one of them against the whole of the @geoblockedindia account.
IFF's position
IFF condemns this legal action. A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship. The notices would deliver exactly what the notice asked for as they would also remove the accounts of the three groups in India that keep public records of what is blocked, and of who ordered it.
The posts in question are about a legal notice sent to us. They quote it, criticise how it was drafted, and say that we will carry on with our work. A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it and that is not defamation of the sender.
In the three weeks before the first notice, IFF assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India. SFLC's Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first 29 days of October. @geoblockedindia publishes the orders behind such blocks when platforms disclose them. None of this is unlawful. Documenting censorship and challenging it in court is what the Constitution expects of citizens.
IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court.
Why the reports are unlawful
Defamation is not a police matter. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-cognizable and bailable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no court can take cognizance of it except on a complaint by the person aggrieved.
Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without an order of a Magistrate. The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) is not the person aggrieved. The notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no order of any Magistrate. Whether a statement is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing its author, with the defences of truth, fair comment and good faith available to that author.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation on the strength of these safeguards. A police officer who asks a platform to remove speech as defamatory has decided the question himself, without a complainant, a court or a hearing.
The posts are protected comment. Exceptions 1 to 3 to Section 356(1) protect the truth published for the public good, opinion on the public conduct of public servants, and opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question. The posts publish a notice that was sent to us and give our opinion of it. The RSS, if it sent the notice, chose to enter a public question. If it did not, the posts defame no one.
Further, Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) do not permit this. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary acquires "actual knowledge" only through a court order, or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are being committed. The court said that it would be difficult for intermediaries to judge the legitimacy of the millions of requests they receive, and that the burden must not be placed on them. Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in November 2025 and February 2026, now requires the intimation to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Deputy Inspector General, to be reasoned, and to specify the legal basis and the nature of the unlawful act, subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer. The three-hour window the notice invokes applies to a lawful order that meets these conditions. A web form that ticks "hate speech" and "enforcement of court order" while leaving the court order fields blank, and that gives one sentence of reasons for 40 URLs, is not such an order.
The notices by the Delhi Police are disproportionate. They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively. They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on speech must be necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available, and that orders restricting speech must be published and reasoned. Removing an organisation's entire account for criticising a legal notice fails each of these tests.
The effect is to silence documentation of censorship and providing legal aid to Indian internet users. The accounts named are those that record blocking orders in India. The notice asked them to stop. A takedown request that accomplishes the demand of an anonymous private notice is not law enforcement. It is the use of state power for a private end, which Article 14 forbids.
Our demands
1. To the Delhi Police: Withdraw reports LD-321926 and LD-322956 and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and to IFF.
2. To the Delhi Police: Disclose the complaint on which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed, and whether any order of a Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS exists. Disclose every request made to any platform in this matter, including those made by the Cyber Crime unit against @geoblockedindia.
3. To X: Do not act on the reports. If any content is withheld in India, tell the affected user before acting, give them the full request, and name the legal basis. Publish both reports to the Lumen database, as the reporting form itself contemplates.
4. To the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs: Have the Secretary-level review required by Rule 3(1)(d) examine these intimations, and tell police forces that Rule 3(1)(d) is not a remedy for defamation, which the law reserves to the person aggrieved and to the courts.
5. To the RSS: State publicly whether it authorised either notice or any complaint to the police. If it did not, say so to the Delhi Police.
If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court. We will continue to document blocking orders, to publish them, and to provide legal assistance to anyone whose account or post is withheld in India. Nothing in these notices changes that.
91
1,049
2,458
187,683
Div retweeted
bf was telling me about adam grant’s classification of three kinds of friends: allies (common goals), pals (masti friends) and companions (emotional support) - and i realised most of my friendships fail because i expect companionship from people who see themselves as just pals
11
195
3,343
58,007
Div retweeted
“Being able to freeze hacked or stolen funds, recover assets, reverse txns and protect customers should be a feature, not something that goes against cryptos ethos”
Cool, so who holds the freeze button? Congrats you’ve reinvented a bank with useless cryptography
Cool, so who holds the freeze button? Congrats you’ve reinvented a bank with useless cryptography
As it turns out, crypto being regulated and supported by governments might be a better outcome than running away from them.
Years of decentralization theatrics, not your keys, not your crypto, hardware wallets, governance, etc mean very little when customers / businesses keep losing money to hackers / scammers.
Being able to freeze hacked or stolen funds, recover assets, reverse txns and protect customers should be a feature, not something that goes against cryptos ethos. Obv a fine line between government overreach vs pure decentralization
At the end of the day, every time someone loses money, we risk losing that user forever. And the more users we churn, the lower the chances of crypto actually succeeding.
Decentralization still matters, but we likely spent too much time optimizing for it, e.g like thorchain or Tornado Cash, where bad actors can take far more advantage of permissionless infra vs the avg user
While we spent far less time optimizing for customer centric features like trust, safety, fraud prevention, and recovery, which are arguably far more important for mass adoption.
27
28
346
10,208
Div retweeted
Last night IFF, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia received a legal notice said to be issued purportedly on behalf of the RSS. It’s hard to believe this comes from an organisation that has had a century to practise its paperwork and hence this may even be a weird prank! This notice sing the Government’s blocking orders and stop documenting them. It also wants us to confirm in writing within seven days (seriously).
We can tell it’s an excellent teaching aid and here are seven lessons from it.
1) Say who you are: The notice names no advocate and gives no enrollment number. It is signed by an “Authorised Signatory” with no name. Replies go to a free Proton Mail ID, and the “office” is a residential flat in outer Delhi. A notice that can’t tell you who sent it is less a legal document than a weather event.
2) Have a grievance of your own: It never says how its client is harmed when we criticise a MeitY advisory. It complains on behalf of the Government’s blocking orders. The Union has no shortage of lawyers, and it hasn’t asked for volunteers.
3) Name the law: It threatens “appropriate legal action” under “the applicable provisions of law” and doesn’t cite a single section of any statute. A threat with no law, is literally an empty threat.
4) Don’t ask people to give up a fundamental right within seven days: The first demand is that we stop “publicly opposing” government directions. In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Supreme Court held that discussion and advocacy of a cause, however unpopular, sit at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). Opposing an order is how its legality gets tested. That is the Constitution working as intended.
5) Check whether the courts asked for the thing you want stopped” In Anuradha Bhasin (2020), the Supreme Court held that orders restricting fundamental rights must be made available so people can challenge them. The Reddit order is on the public Lumen Database because Reddit put it there. Reading a public database and saying what’s in it has a name. It’s called research.
6) Show us the spark and the powder keg: The notice says our work weakens national security measures, but it gives no instance, date or harm. In S. Rangarajan (1989), the Supreme Court held that the danger feared from speech can’t be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It has to be like a spark in a powder keg. A post about a Lumen filing is not a spark.
7) Read it once more before you press send: The paragraphs run 1, then an empty 2 and 3, then 4. A PIN code wanders into the facts. The account it targets is on “Twitter”.
Our reply is short. The notice is legally deficient because it makes no material allegation and cites no illegality. We will respectfully continue to advance constitutional rights, as we have done before. Notices like this rarely expect to win in court. They expect the recipient to get tired. We often are tired, but it has never changed what we do. Solidarity with @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia.
If your post or account has been blocked in India, write to legal@internetfreedom.in.
We can tell it’s an excellent teaching aid and here are seven lessons from it.
1) Say who you are: The notice names no advocate and gives no enrollment number. It is signed by an “Authorised Signatory” with no name. Replies go to a free Proton Mail ID, and the “office” is a residential flat in outer Delhi. A notice that can’t tell you who sent it is less a legal document than a weather event.
2) Have a grievance of your own: It never says how its client is harmed when we criticise a MeitY advisory. It complains on behalf of the Government’s blocking orders. The Union has no shortage of lawyers, and it hasn’t asked for volunteers.
3) Name the law: It threatens “appropriate legal action” under “the applicable provisions of law” and doesn’t cite a single section of any statute. A threat with no law, is literally an empty threat.
4) Don’t ask people to give up a fundamental right within seven days: The first demand is that we stop “publicly opposing” government directions. In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Supreme Court held that discussion and advocacy of a cause, however unpopular, sit at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). Opposing an order is how its legality gets tested. That is the Constitution working as intended.
5) Check whether the courts asked for the thing you want stopped” In Anuradha Bhasin (2020), the Supreme Court held that orders restricting fundamental rights must be made available so people can challenge them. The Reddit order is on the public Lumen Database because Reddit put it there. Reading a public database and saying what’s in it has a name. It’s called research.
6) Show us the spark and the powder keg: The notice says our work weakens national security measures, but it gives no instance, date or harm. In S. Rangarajan (1989), the Supreme Court held that the danger feared from speech can’t be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It has to be like a spark in a powder keg. A post about a Lumen filing is not a spark.
7) Read it once more before you press send: The paragraphs run 1, then an empty 2 and 3, then 4. A PIN code wanders into the facts. The account it targets is on “Twitter”.
Our reply is short. The notice is legally deficient because it makes no material allegation and cites no illegality. We will respectfully continue to advance constitutional rights, as we have done before. Notices like this rarely expect to win in court. They expect the recipient to get tired. We often are tired, but it has never changed what we do. Solidarity with @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia.
If your post or account has been blocked in India, write to legal@internetfreedom.in.
49
331
921
62,405
stop we’re already dead
BREAKING: World's largest crypto exchange Binance hacked with over $5.6 billion stolen:
• $1.45 billion $BTC
• $875 million $ETH
• $234 million $TRX
• $50 million $XAUT
• $1.57 billion $USDT
• $823 million $USDC
• $75 million $WBETH
• $88.5 million $RLUSD
+ $447.5 tocurrencies
This is the largest hack in crypto history.
0
0
3
246
Div retweeted
If you're someone who relies on melatonin as a daily sleep supplement, we have something for you!! x.com/i/article/2115…
2
2
14
782
everyone around me been in this loop
i feel stuck with wtf i do for like 10 months
keep going round in circles. questioning and re-questioning everything. things feel exciting then dont.
what feels like a good business direction then doesnt.
touch grass, ai melting brains, i know i know but still
1
0
14
983
Div retweeted
Instagram has restricted a post from X user @KiranSrivatson comparing the performance of Finance Minister @nsitharaman and former Finance Minister @PChidambaram_IN in India.
5
34
97
1,181
started rocking with zuck for a bit but it's back to fuck zuck
A paranoid Modi Govt has gone berserk on @instagram - any content that is slightly critical of the Supreme Leader is being taken down. Even JOKES are not being spared💀
Why is the ‘most popular PM in the world’ so worried about what’s happening on Insta? Didn’t Modi say that we mour in our lives?😖
As the narrative slips and the lies come out - expect more accounts to be censored / banned / blocked. @Meta not saying saying why the content got blocked - just that they are following local regulations 😬🥸
0
0
4
481
