The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that authorities seeking to block online content must provide the affected user with a copy of the blocking communication when it is sent to a social media platform.
The October 5, 2026, order was passed by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya in a petition filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited after its Facebook page was blocked in India on August 21, following a communication from the Yamuna Nagar Superintendent of Police to Meta Platforms Inc.
The State argued that a director of the company, who was an accused in a criminal case, had allegedly used the page to intimidate the victim and witnesses. However, the court found that the Superintendent of Police lacked the requisite authority to issue the communication under the applicable rules and set it aside.
It directed the officer to instruct Meta to restore the page within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. The ruling reinforces the principle that online restrictions must follow due process and that affected users must be informed of the action taken against their content.
Court Stresses Transparency
The dispute arose after Haryana 24 News Network challenged the blocking of its Facebook page, arguing that it had neither received prior notice nor been given a copy of the communication sent to Meta.
Without access to the communication, the company said it was unable to understand the grounds for the restriction or effectively challenge the action. The State defended the decision by alleging that one of the company’s directors was using the page to intimidate a victim and witnesses in a criminal case.
These were the State’s allegations and should not be treated as findings that the alleged conduct had been established. In examining the matter, the High Court found that the blocking communication had been issued by a Superintendent of Police, whereas the applicable Information Technology Rules required an appropriately authorised police officer of at least Deputy Inspector General of Police rank for such action.
The court set aside the communication on this ground. It also held that the affected user must receive a copy of the communication when it is sent to the intermediary.
Why the Rules Matter
The judgment addresses a gap in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Although Rule 3(2) does not expressly require authorities to provide the affected user with a copy of the blocking communication, the court held that this obligation follows from the principles of natural justice. These principles require fair treatment and a meaningful opportunity to respond when a decision affects a person’s interests.
A notice sent to a platform can restrict access to a publisher’s online presence, potentially affecting its ability to reach readers and share information. If the affected party is not told the grounds for the restriction, challenging the decision becomes considerably harder. The court therefore treated disclosure as an essential safeguard rather than an optional administrative step.
It also directed that, if authorities identify content prohibited by law and seek a fresh restriction, the communication issued by the authorised officer must be furnished to the affected party immediately after it is sent to the platform. The order does not prevent lawful content blocking; instead, it emphasises that such action must be taken by the appropriate authority and accompanied by procedural safeguards.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The High Court’s ruling is a reminder that accountability and public safety need not be opposing goals. Authorities must be able to act against content that violates the law, particularly where there are credible concerns about threats, intimidation or harm.
However, such powers must be exercised by officials authorised under the law, with safeguards that allow affected people to understand and challenge decisions. When a news page, a creator’s account or an ordinary user’s content is restricted without the reasons being shared, the lack of transparency can undermine trust in public institutions and make access to remedies more difficult.
Providing a copy of the blocking communication does not guarantee that every restriction will be overturned, nor does it exempt users from the law. It ensures that the process is fair and that the affected person is not left guessing about the basis of official action.
In a digital society where online platforms are important channels for news, public debate and civic participation, clear procedures are essential to maintaining confidence in both governance and law enforcement.
The Logical Indian believes that responsible enforcement must go hand in hand with transparency, fairness and respect for individual rights. How can India balance the need to restrict unlawful online content with every user’s right to know why their content has been blocked?
