Facebook Page Blocking | Police Intimation To Intermediary Must Come From DIG Or Above, SP Cannot Act As Delegatee: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, under which Meta blocked a news company's Facebook page in India. The Court held that under the IT Rules, 2021, a police intimation to an intermediary can be issued only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) who has been specially authorised for the purpose. It held that this power cannot be delegated to a lower-ranked officer.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also held that the user whose content is targeted must be given a copy of the intimation when it is sent to the intermediary. The Court read this requirement into Rule 3(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as a matter of natural justice.

The Court described the SP's action that“...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.”

The petitioner, Haryana 24 News Network Pvt. Ltd., found that its verified Facebook page had been blocked in India from August 21, 2026. The only information it received was a notice from Meta on the page. The notice said access had been restricted on a notice from the Government or law enforcement under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The company's counsel argued that it was given no notice and no copy of the intimation, and was “kept in complete darkness.” He argued that under the 2021 Rules, a police intimation must come from an officer not below the rank of DIG, and that this requirement had not been met.

The State did not dispute the facts. It told the Court that one of the company's directors is an accused in an FIR dated August 6, 2026 under Section 308(2) of the BNS. According to the State, the director had been continuously posting videos and sending messages through the page to intimidate the victim and witnesses. The SP, Yamuna Nagar, therefore issued an intimation to Meta on August 21, 2026.

The State argued that the SP had been authorised by the State Government as a delegatee. It also argued that the company should first approach Meta's grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2).

No Delegation Below DIG Rank

The Court examined Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules. Under the same, an intermediary gets “actual knowledge” only through a court order or a reasoned written intimation. The intimation must be issued by an authorised officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, or Director where no Joint Secretary is appointed. When the police issue it, the officer must be not below the rank of DIG and must be specially authorised.

The rule also requires every intimation to be reviewed each month by an officer not below the rank of Secretary. The review is meant to ensure the intimation is necessary, proportionate and consistent with Section 79(3)(b). The intimation must also specify the legal provision invoked, the nature of the unlawful act and the exact URL or other identifier of the content to be removed.

Since the SP was “concededly below the rank of DIGP,” the Court held that the intimation violated Rule 3(1)(d). It rejected the State's delegation argument:

“...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.”

The Court noted that the State could not point to any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation, and that the intimation did not even refer to a delegation order. It added that although more than a month had passed, the State had not shown that the mandatory monthly review had been carried out.

The Court held that the intimation was “without jurisdiction, and was not required to be acted upon” by Meta.

User Must Get Copy Of Intimation

The Court also refused to send the company to Meta's Grievance Officer.

It noted that Rule 3(2) allows a user to complain to the intermediary's Grievance Officer, who must resolve the complaint within 15 days. However, the Rules provide no hearing for the user before an intimation is issued. The Court clarified that it was not examining whether the lack of a pre-decisional hearing was justified, as the petitioner had not challenged it.

On the post-decisional hearing before the Grievance Officer, the Court said a user cannot meaningfully defend itself without knowing about the intimation, its contents and the material relied on. Without that knowledge, the purpose of the grievance mechanism “gets defeated.”

Relying on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), the Court reiterated that a procedure is fair and reasonable only if it respects the core tenets of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing. It held:

“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.”

The Court said this would make the procedure under Rule 3(2) compliant with natural justice and constitutionally valid. Since the company had never received the intimation, it held that approaching the Grievance Officer “will be a futile exercise and seriously impair its right to defend.”

The Court set aside the intimation dated August 21, 2026. It directed the SP, Yamuna Nagar to instruct Meta, within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order, to restore the Facebook page to its original status. It directed Meta to comply urgently.

The Court added that if the Government finds any content on the page unlawful and an authorised officer sends an intimation under Rule 3(1)(d), the petitioner must be given a copy immediately after it is sent.

Notice to Meta was dispensed with, as no order adverse to it was being passed and the only issue was the legality of the Government's instructions to it.

Appearance: Mr. Namit Khurana and Mr. Gagan Budhiraja, Advocates, for the petitioner. 

Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, with Ms. Amrita Singh, Central Government Counsel, for UOI.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional AG, Haryana.