Social Media Users Must Be Informed of Content Blocking Notices: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that users must receive a copy of government notices seeking to block their content.

What Did the High Court Rule?

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that when the government sends an intimation to a social media intermediary seeking to block content, a copy must be provided to the affected user immediately after it is sent. The court observed that although the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, do not expressly require such notification, the obligation follows from the principles of natural justice.

The ruling arose from a petition filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited challenging the blocking of its Facebook page in India. The page was blocked on August 21, 2026, following an intimation issued by Haryana Police to Meta Platforms Inc.

FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders

Why Was the Facebook Page Blocked?

The Haryana government submitted that one of the company’s directors was accused in a criminal case and had allegedly used the Facebook page to intimidate the victim and witnesses.

The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, consequently directed Meta to disable access to the page. However, the High Court found that the officer lacked the authority required under the 2021 Rules. The applicable provisions required an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, specifically authorised by the appropriate government, to issue such intimations.

The court held that this statutory authority could not be delegated to a lower-ranking officer. It consequently declared the blocking intimation to be without jurisdiction.

Why Must Users Receive Blocking Notices?

The court rejected the government’s argument that the petitioner should seek restoration through Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism. It observed that Rule 3(2) provides users with a grievance redressal process, but challenging a blocking decision effectively requires knowledge of the reasons and material supporting it. Without receiving the government’s intimation, an affected user cannot meaningfully contest the action.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, the court emphasised the importance of fair hearings and protection against bias.

What Did the Court Order?

The High Court set aside the August 21 blocking intimation and directed the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, to instruct Meta to restore the petitioner’s Facebook page to its original status. Restoration must take place within 24 hours of the officer receiving a certified copy of the order.

The court clarified that authorities could initiate fresh action against unlawful content, provided the intimation was issued by an authorised officer and a copy was immediately furnished to the affected user.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

The420 Insight: The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in online content regulation. It establishes that government blocking requests must follow statutory authorisation requirements and that affected users must receive sufficient information to challenge restrictions through available grievance mechanisms.