Introduction
The High Court set aside an intimation issued by a Superintendent of Police to block a Facebook page, holding that the officer lacked the prescribed authority and that disclosure of blocking notices is essential to ensure compliance with natural justice.
Background
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a government authority seeking to block a social media page must furnish a copy of its intimation to the affected user immediately after sending it to the intermediary. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed that disclosure is necessary to enable users to understand the grounds for blocking and effectively challenge the decision.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, which challenged the blocking of its Facebook page in India. The page was blocked on August 21, 2026, following an intimation issued by the Haryana Police to Meta Platforms Inc. 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. Consequently, it remained unaware of the reasons and material relied upon to block its page.
The State contended that one of the company’s directors was an accused in a criminal case and had allegedly used the Facebook page to post videos and send messages intended to intimidate the victim and witnesses. The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, had issued the intimation directing Meta to disable access to the page.
However, the High Court found that the intimation had been issued by an officer below the rank prescribed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Legal Issue
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the government could block a social media page without furnishing the affected user with a copy of the intimation sent to the intermediary.
The Court also examined whether a Superintendent of Police could issue such an intimation when the applicable rules prescribed a higher rank for the authorised officer. Another issue was whether the affected user could be directed to rely on the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism without first being informed of the grounds for blocking.
The dispute required the Court to consider the relationship between statutory requirements, administrative authority and the principles of natural justice.
Court Ruling
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the intimation issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, was without jurisdiction because the officer did not satisfy the prescribed rank requirement.
The Court noted that the 2021 Rules require a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, specifically authorised by the appropriate government, to issue such intimations on behalf of the police administration. The prescribed authority could not be delegated to an officer of a lower rank contrary to the statutory requirements.
The Court also held that the affected user must receive a copy of the intimation when it is sent to the intermediary. Although the 2021 Rules do not expressly require the government to notify the user before issuing an intimation under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, the obligation to disclose the communication must be read into the rules to comply with natural justice.
The Court observed that a user cannot effectively challenge a blocking decision without knowing the grounds on which it was taken. A post-decisional hearing before the intermediary’s Grievance Officer would be meaningful only if the user had access to the intimation and the material relied upon by the authorities.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), the High Court reiterated that the right to a fair hearing and protection against bias are fundamental principles of natural justice.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner could approach Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism to seek restoration of the page. Since the company had not received the intimation from either the police or Meta, it lacked the information necessary to challenge the blocking effectively.
The Court held that directing the company to pursue the grievance mechanism in these circumstances would be futile and would impair its ability to defend itself.
Implications
The High Court set aside the intimation dated August 21, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. It directed the officer to instruct Meta to restore the petitioner’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 finds that any information or content on the page is prohibited by law or is being used for illegal activities, a copy of any intimation issued by the authorised officer to the intermediary must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.
The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in government-directed social media blocking. It clarifies that an affected user must have access to the information necessary to challenge an administrative decision, even when the applicable rules do not expressly prescribe advance notice.
The decision also underscores that statutory powers must be exercised by officers who satisfy the qualifications and authorisation requirements prescribed by law. An action taken by an officer lacking the required authority may be set aside, regardless of the underlying concerns raised by the government.
The judgment adds clarity on the application of natural justice to social media blocking and emphasises that transparency, proper authorisation and an effective opportunity to challenge administrative action are essential safeguards in restricting online content.
