Punjab and Haryana High Court orders social media users get copy of blocking notices

Government authorities issuing content-blocking intimations to social media intermediaries must provide a copy of that notice to the affected user, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that while the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 do not explicitly mandate prior warning before an intermediary is directed to restrict access, basic principles of natural justice require that account holders be informed when such action is initiated.

Without knowing the grounds and material relied upon by authorities, the court observed, a citizen or publisher cannot meaningfully approach an intermediary's grievance officer for redress.

What the court decided on procedure

The ruling came on a petition filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, which challenged the blocking of its Facebook page following a directive issued by the Haryana Police to Meta Platforms Inc. under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The state had argued that one of the company's directors was named in a criminal complaint and had allegedly used the digital channel to post videos intimidating a victim and witnesses. Acting on that complaint, the Superintendent of Police in Yamuna Nagar ordered Meta to disable public access to the page on 21 August.

The High Court found that the blocking order was fundamentally defective because it was issued without proper statutory authority. Under the IT Rules framework, police communications seeking intermediary take-downs cannot be issued by an officer of district superintendent rank.

(Note: Court reports vary on the precise threshold rank cited during proceedings, with one citing Inspector General of Police and another citing Deputy Inspector General of Police, but both confirm an SP-level officer lacked statutory competence.)

Why grievance redressal requires notice

The bench rejected the state's contention that Haryana 24 News Network should simply pursue normal appeals before Meta's internal grievance officer before approaching the courts.

Justice Dahiya noted that any post-decisional hearing before a platform's grievance mechanism becomes meaningless if the user remains completely unaware of what the police alleged or which statutory provisions were invoked. The court cited the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, reaffirming that a fair hearing and the rule against institutional bias remain bedrocks of Indian administrative law.

"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," the bench held. The court ruled that the requirement to share the government intimation directly with the user must be read into Rule 3(2) of the 2021 Rules.

What happens next

The High Court quashed the Yamuna Nagar police intimation and instructed the officer to notify Meta to restore the news outlet's Facebook page within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The order preserves legitimate law-enforcement capabilities while strengthening procedural safeguards. Justice Dahiya made clear that if law enforcement identifies unlawful content on the page, properly designated senior officers retain full power to issue fresh blocking directions to intermediaries—provided a copy is handed to the publisher at the same time.