Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Blocking of MediaOne's Facebook Page

Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the notice to the respondents and directed the Central government and Meta to file counter affidavits.

The petitioner, contends that its Facebook page was abruptly rendered “not available in India” on April 23, 2026, following a notification citing a request from the Government of India or law enforcement under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

According to the petition, the blocking has effectively cut off access to MediaOne's digital content for Indian users, disrupting its online operations and causing significant financial loss. The broadcaster states that its Facebook page, active since 2011, is a key platform for disseminating news and public interest content and generates substantial revenue estimated at around ₹25 lakh per month.

The petitioner alleges that the action was taken without disclosure of any blocking order under Section 69A of the IT Act, communication of reasons or prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argues that the actions of the respondents is a complete disregard of the mandatory statutory safeguards and constitutional limitations governing online content regulation.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Section 79(3)(b) invoked in the notification, does not confer independent powers to block content. Instead, it only outlines circumstances in which intermediaries lose safe harbour protection. The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1], which held that “actual knowledge” for content takedown must arise only through a court order or a valid government blocking order under Section 69A.

The petition contends that no such court order or Section 69A direction has been disclosed and argues that intermediaries cannot act on informal or undisclosed executive communications.

The petitioner has also challenged the scope of the restriction, arguing that the law permits blocking only of “specific and identifiable content,” not entire accounts or pages. The blanket disabling of its Facebook page, it claims, is excessive, disproportionate, and contrary to the statutory framework under the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009.

Further, the petition points to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which require that blocking directions be content-specific and not result in cessation of operations.

It is further submitted that the blocking violates the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g), as well as its property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner has thus sought to set aside the blocking of its Facebook page, declare the action illegal and unconstitutional, direct restoration of access within India, and ensure compliance with statutory safeguards for any future content regulation.

The Court has issued the notice to the respondents and has posted the matter to 5 MAy for further consideration.

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v Facebook India Online Service Private Limited and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 15985/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioners: Ameen Hassan K., Lisna Sherin T.T, Ummul Fadla T., Sidharth O