Social Media Users Must Be Given Copy Of Govt Intimation To Intermediary For Content Blocking: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a social media user whose content is targeted for blocking must be furnished a copy of the government's intimation to the intermediary immediately after it is sent, holding that such disclosure is essential to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed that although the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, do not expressly require the government to notify the affected user before sending an intimation to an intermediary under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, the obligation to furnish a copy of the intimation is inherent in the principles of natural justice.

"Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary," the Court held.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited challenging the blocking of its Facebook page in India pursuant to an intimation issued by the Haryana Police to Meta Platforms Inc. under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

The petitioner's Facebook page had been blocked on August 21, 2026. The company contended that it had neither been given prior notice nor furnished a copy of the intimation sent to Meta, leaving it unaware of the reasons and material underlying the blocking action.

The State submitted that one of the company's directors was an accused in a criminal case and had allegedly been posting videos and sending messages through the Facebook page to intimidate the victim and witnesses. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, had issued the intimation directing Meta to disable access to the page.

The High Court, however, found that the intimation had been issued by the Superintendent of Police, who was below the rank prescribed under the 2021 Rules for an authorised police officer to issue such a communication. The Rules require an 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 Court held that the prescribed power could not be delegated to an officer of a lower rank when the statutory rules specifically stipulated the minimum rank of the authorised officer. It consequently held that the intimation was without jurisdiction.

Right To Grievance Redressal Requires Knowledge Of Blocking Action

The High Court also rejected the State's contention that the petitioner should approach Meta's grievance redressal mechanism to seek restoration of its Facebook page.

The Court noted that Rule 3(2) of the 2021 Rules provides a grievance redressal mechanism for users. However, an effective opportunity to challenge the blocking action necessarily requires the affected user to know the grounds on which the action was taken.

The Court observed that any post-decisional hearing before the intermediary's Grievance Officer would require the user to be made aware of the intimation, its contents and the material relied upon to issue it. Without such information, the user would be unable to defend itself, defeating the very purpose of the grievance redressal mechanism.

"Every procedure established by law has to be fair and reasonable, which can only be when it has not violated the basic tenets of natural justice, which includes the right to a fair hearing," the Court observed.

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 the right against bias constitute the primary tenets of natural justice.

The Court held that although Rule 3(2) does not expressly require the government to notify the affected user before sending an intimation to the intermediary, the obligation to provide a copy of the intimation must be read into the Rule.

In the present case, the petitioner had not received a copy of the intimation either from the police or from Meta and had been kept completely in the dark about the blocking exercise. In these circumstances, relegating the petitioner to the intermediary's grievance redressal mechanism would be futile and would seriously impair its right to defend itself, the Court held.

Facebook Page To Be Restored

The High Court set aside the intimation dated August 21, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, and 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 petitioner's Facebook page is prohibited by law and is being used for illegal activities, a copy of any intimation issued to the intermediary by the authorised officer must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.