The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that social media users whose content is targeted for blocking must be furnished a copy of the government’s intimation to the intermediary immediately after it is sent. The Court held that disclosure is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure that users can meaningfully challenge restrictions on their online content.
In a judgment dated October 5, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya set aside an intimation issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, directing Meta Platforms Inc. to block the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The Court found that the officer was below the minimum rank prescribed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and that the company had not been furnished a copy of the notice or informed of the grounds for the blocking.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta to restore the Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. It further directed that any future intimation issued by an authorised officer seeking to block content on the page must be shared with the company immediately after being sent to the intermediary.
Blocking notice issued by an officer below prescribed rank
The petition was filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited after its verified Facebook page was blocked in India on August 21, 2026, pursuant to an intimation issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The company argued that it had received neither prior notice nor a copy of the intimation sent to Meta, leaving it unaware of the reasons and material underlying the blocking action. Its directors learnt of the restriction through a notification on Facebook stating that access to the page had been restricted in India pursuant to a notice from the government or law enforcement authorities.
The State submitted that one of the company’s directors, Mohit Verma, was an accused in a criminal case registered under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the State, he had allegedly been posting videos and sending messages through the Facebook page to intimidate the victim and witnesses in the case. The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, had consequently issued the intimation directing Meta to disable access to the page.
The State maintained that the notice complied with the 2021 Rules because the Superintendent of Police had been authorised by the state government as a delegatee. It also argued that the company could seek restoration of its page through Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the Rules.
The High Court rejected the State’s defence on the question of the officer’s authority. Examining Rule 3(1)(d), Justice Dahiya noted that a reasoned written intimation seeking the removal or disabling of unlawful content must be issued by an officer authorised by the appropriate government. In cases involving the police administration, the Rules specifically require the authorised officer to be of a rank not below Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), with specific authorisation from the government.
The Court found that the intimation in the present case had been issued by the Superintendent of Police, who was concededly below the prescribed rank. It held that where statutory rules specify the minimum rank of the officer empowered to exercise a particular authority, that power cannot be delegated to an officer of a lower rank.
The State had failed to identify any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation or refer to an order authorising the Superintendent of Police to issue the intimation. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the officer had validly exercised delegated authority. Describing the action as an arbitrary exercise of power, the Court held that the intimation dated August 21 was without jurisdiction and was not required to have been acted upon by Meta.
“In the instant case, the intimation to the intermediary/sixth respondent for blocking access to the petitioner’s Facebook page, dated 21.08.2026, has been sent by the Superintendent of Police, who is concededly below the rank of DIGP. Accordingly, it is in violation of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules requiring that the authorised officer shall not be below the rank of DIGP. Also, once an officer not below a particular rank has been prescribed as the empowered officer under the statutory rules to issue the intimation, there cannot be delegation of such power to any other officer of a lower rank. Therefore, the contention by learned State counsel that the Superintendent of Police has been delegated the power to issue the intimation, cannot be accepted being unsustainable in law. He has not been able to show any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation, nor has any reference been made in the intimation to the order delegating the power. Thus, it is evident that the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him in issuing the said intimation in flagrant violation of statutory provisions; this is sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power.” (Para 6.3)
The Court also noted that the Rules require such intimations to undergo monthly review by an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned government to ensure that they remain necessary, proportionate and consistent with the law. The State had not demonstrated that the intimation in this case had undergone the prescribed review.
“It further needs a mention that in terms of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3, the Government is required to review every month all intimations issued to intermediaries to ensure that the same are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the provisions of Section 79(3)(b) of the 2000 Act. It has also not been shown that any such review was carried out with respect to the intimation issued in the instant case as more than a month has lapsed since it was issued. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the intimation, dated 21.08.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction, and was not required to be acted upon by the sixth respondent.” (Para 6.3)
Withholding blocking notice undermines natural justice
The judgment also addressed a critical procedural question: whether an affected user can be expected to challenge a blocking decision without being given the notice that led to it. The Court examined the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the 2021 Rules, which requires intermediaries to publish the contact details of their Grievance Officers and provide a mechanism through which users can raise complaints. The Rules prescribe timelines for acknowledging and resolving grievances.
Justice Dahiya observed that although the Rules do not expressly provide for a hearing before the government sends a blocking intimation to an intermediary, the absence of such an express requirement does not dispense with the obligation to disclose the intimation to the affected user.
The Court clarified that whether a pre-decisional hearing was necessary was not an issue before it, since the petitioner had not challenged that aspect of the Rules. Its consideration was instead focused on the right to a meaningful post-decisional hearing through the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism. Such a hearing, the Court reasoned, would be ineffective unless the affected user knew that an intimation had been issued, what it contained and what material had been relied upon to justify the action. Without this information, a user would be unable to defend itself or effectively contest the restriction.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), the High Court reiterated that the core requirements of natural justice include the right to a fair hearing and the right against bias. The Court observed that procedures established by law must be fair and reasonable and cannot disregard these fundamental requirements. It held that the obligation to furnish the intimation must be read into Rule 3(2), even though the provision does not expressly require the government or its agency to notify the affected user before sending the notice to the intermediary.
“Although sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 does not explicitly lay down the requirement for the Government or its agency to notify the user/person responsible for uploading the data or information on the social media page before sending the intimation, it is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to be read into the Rule. Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. This will make the procedure of sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 compliant of the primary tenets of natural justice and constitutionally valid. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been furnished a copy of the intimation dated 21.08.2026, either by the Superintendent of Police or the intermediary and has been kept completely in dark about the whole exercise. In such a situation, approaching the grievance redressal mechanism by it will be a futile exercise and seriously impair its right to defend. Therefore, this Court finds no justifiable ground to relegate the petitioner to the Grievance Officer for resolution of grievance against blocking of its Facebook page.” (Para 6.4)
In the present case, neither the police nor Meta had furnished the company with a copy of the intimation. The Court found that the petitioner had been kept completely in the dark about the blocking exercise, making it unreasonable to direct it to approach Meta’s Grievance Officer as the sole avenue of redress. Without access to the notice and the grounds underlying the action, the grievance redressal process would be futile and would seriously impair the company’s ability to defend itself, the Court held.
Facebook page ordered to be restored
Setting aside the August 21 intimation, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta to restore the company’s Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court further directed that if the government identifies information, data or communication links on the page that are prohibited by law and being used for illegal activities, any intimation issued by the authorised officer to the intermediary must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.
The ruling underscores that the power to restrict access to online content must be exercised by officers authorised under the statutory framework and in accordance with the safeguards prescribed by law. It also makes clear that the right to challenge a blocking action cannot be meaningful if the affected user is denied access to the very notice on which that action is based. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The complete judgement may be read below:
Related:
The State Wants the Delete Button: India’s new architecture of digital censorship
How big tech is profiting from Hindutva hate music
Meta’s policy shift: Fuelling hate in an era of LGBTQIA+ inclusion
From fact-checking to chaos: How meta’s new moderation model risks eroding trust and democracy