Blocking of Facebook Page -Intimation to User Mandatory
judgment dated 5.10.2026 of the Punjab and Harayana High Court in CWP NO.30190 of 2026 of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others
Blocking of Facebook Page – Police powers & Section 79(3)(b) IT Act 2000
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the intimation given by respondents no.1 to 5 to the sixth respondent/Meta Platforms Inc. under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the 2000 Act’), pursuant whereto the petitioner’s Facebook page “Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited” has been blocked within geographical limits of the country. Further, a direction has been sought to the said respondents to forthwith restore access for public use and viewing in India to the aforesaid verified Facebook page which remains blocked since 21.08.2026.
the blocking was pursuant to some notice issued by the respondents under Section 79(3)(b) of the 2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder – Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (for short, ‘the 2021 Rules’). Such a direction to block the page can be given to an intermediary only by the officers authorised under the Rules, and in case of police administration the same cannot be by an officer below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), specially authorised by the Government for the purpose
In the instant case, the intimation to the intermediary/sixth respondent for blocking access to the petitioner’s Facebook page, dated 21.08.2026, has been sent by the Superintendent of Police, who is concededly below the rank of DIGP. Accordingly, it is in violation of clause (d) to sub-rule CWP-30190-2026 -8- (1) to Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules requiring that the authorised officer shall not be below the rank of DIGP. Also, 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. Therefore, the contention by learned State counsel that the Superintendent of Police has been delegated the power to issue the intimation, cannot be accepted being unsustainable in law. He has not been able to show any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation, nor has any reference been made in the intimation to the order delegating the power. Thus, 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. It further needs a mention that in terms of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3, the Government is required to review every month all intimations issued to intermediaries to ensure that the same are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the provisions of Section 79(3)(b) of the 2000 Act. It has also not been shown that any such review was carried out with respect to the intimation issued in the instant case as more than a month has lapsed since it was issued. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the intimation, dated 21.08.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction, and was not required to be acted upon by the sixth respondent.
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. This will make the procedure of sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 compliant of the primary tenets of natural justice and constitutionally valid. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been furnished a copy of the intimation dated 21.08.2026, either by the Superintendent of Police or the intermediary and has been kept completely in dark about the whole exercise. In such a situation, approaching the grievance redressal mechanism by it will be a futile exercise and seriously impair its right to defend. Therefore, this Court finds no justifiable ground to relegate the petitioner to the Grievance Officer for resolution of grievance against blocking of its Facebook page.
