Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition challenging an intimation issued under Section 79(3)(b), Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) to Meta Platforms Inc., pursuant to which the petitioner company’s verified Facebook page had been blocked in India since 21 August 2026, a Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., set aside the intimation dated 21-08-2026 and directed restoration of the page. The Court held that under Rule 3(1)(d), Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules), where an intimation is issued by the police administration, the authorised officer must be not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), specially authorised by the appropriate Government. The power cannot be delegated to an officer of a lower rank. The Court further held that a copy of the blocking intimation must be furnished to the affected user when it is sent to the intermediary, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It also declined to relegate the petitioner to the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism, as the petitioner had not been informed of the intimation or its contents.
Background
The petitioner, a news network company, ran a verified Facebook page that was blocked within India. Its directors came to know of the blocking through a notice displayed on the stage, stating that access had been restricted pursuant to a notice from the Government of India or law enforcement under Section 79(3)(b), IT Act. The petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to it before the blocking, and that a copy of the intimation sent to Meta Platforms Inc. (Respondent 6) was never furnished to it. It submitted that it had suffered business losses and damage to its reputation. It argued that, under the IT Rules, 2021, such a direction can be issued only by an authorised officer and, where it is issued by the police administration, only by an officer not below the rank of DIGP specially authorised by the Government. It contended that this mandatory procedure had not been followed.
The State, without disputing the facts, submitted that one of the directors of the petitioner company was an accused in FIR, registered under Section 308(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It stated that he had been continuously posting videos and sending messages through the page to intimidate the victim and the witnesses. On this basis, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar (Respondent 4) issued an intimation dated 21 August 2026 to Meta Platforms Inc. for disabling access to the page. The State contended that the intimation complied with the IT Rules, 2021, as the Superintendent of Police had been authorised as a delegatee by the State Government. It also argued that the petitioner had not availed of the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2), IT Rules, 2021.
The Court dispensed with service of notice on Meta Platforms Inc., as no order adverse to its interests was being passed and the only issue was the legality of the instructions issued to it by the Government.
Issues and Analysis
The Court was called upon to determine whether the intimation dated 21 August 2026 issued by the Superintendent of Police for blocking the petitioner’s Facebook page was valid under Section 79(3)(b), IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d), IT Rules, 2021, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2).
The Court first noted the statutory scheme. Section 79, IT Act exempts an intermediary from liability for third-party information hosted by it, provided that, on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency, it removes or disables access to the material without vitiating the evidence. Rule 3(1)(d), IT Rules, 2021 requires the intermediary to remove or disable access within 36 hours of receiving actual knowledge.
The Court observed that such knowledge can arise only from an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or from a reasoned written intimation issued by an authorised officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or equivalent. Where the intimation is issued by the police administration, the authorised officer cannot be below the rank of DIGP, specially authorised by the appropriate government. The Court also noted that all such intimations must be reviewed every month by an officer not below the rank of Secretary to ensure that they are necessary and proportionate. The intimation must also specify the legal basis, the nature of the unlawful act and the specific URL or electronic location of the content.
Applying this, the Court noted that the intimation had concededly been issued by a Superintendent of Police, who is below the rank of DIGP, and held it to be in violation of Rule 3(1)(d). The Court held that once the Rules prescribe an officer not below a particular rank as the empowered officer, the power cannot be delegated to an officer of a lower rank. It rejected the State’s plea of delegation as unsustainable in law, noting that counsel had not shown any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation and that the intimation itself made no reference to any order of delegation.
The Court held that the Superintendent of Police had usurped a power not vested in him, which it described as highhandedness and an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court further noted that it had not been shown that any monthly review had been carried out, although more than a month had lapsed since the intimation was issued. It held that the intimation was without jurisdiction and was not required to be acted upon by Meta Platforms Inc.
On the alternative remedy, the Court held that the petitioner could not be relegated to the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2). It observed that the Grievance Officer must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days. However, the Rules make no provision for hearing the user before an intimation is issued, although the user is adversely affected by the blocking. The Court noted that it was not called upon to decide whether the absence of a pre-decisional hearing is justified, as that had not been challenged. It considered, however, that a post-decisional hearing before the Grievance Officer would be meaningless unless the user knows of the action taken and is aware of the intimation, its contents and the material relied upon. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366, on the right to a fair hearing as the core of natural justice, the Court held that every procedure established by law must be fair and reasonable.
The Court therefore held that, although Rule 3(2) does not expressly require it, the obligation to notify the user is ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to be read into the Rule. A copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary, which would make the procedure under Rule 3(2) compliant with natural justice and constitutionally valid. Since the petitioner had not been furnished a copy of the intimation by either the Superintendent of Police or the intermediary, and had been kept completely in the dark, the Court held that approaching the Grievance Officer would be futile and would seriously impair its right to defend.
Decision
The Court set aside the intimation dated 21 August 2026 and disposed of the petition with the following directions:
-
The Superintendent of Police shall, within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order, instruct Meta Platforms Inc. to restore the petitioner’s Facebook page to its original status, and the latter shall urgently comply.
-
If the Government finds that any information, data or communication link on the page is prohibited under law and is used for illegal activities, and an intimation is required to be sent to the intermediary by the authorised officer under Rule 3(1)(d), IT Rules, 2021, a copy of such intimation shall be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it has been sent.
[Haryana 24 News Network (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, CWP No. 30190 of 2026, decided on 5-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Adv. Namit Khurana and Adv. Gagan Budhiraja
For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, with Ms. Amrita Singh, Central Government Counsel, for the Union of India; Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
