Social media users must be given copy of takedown order: Punjab and Haryana HC

A government takedown order is an official direction requiring a social media intermediary to remove, disable, or block access to content. It may target an individual post, a collection of content, or an entire account or page. The order matters because it can restrict online speech and access to a platform without the company itself first deciding to remove the material.

In the case described, the superintendent of police in Yamuna Nagar ordered Facebook to disable Haryana 24 News Network’s page in India. The police said a company director, accused in an extortion case, allegedly used the page to intimidate the victim and witnesses. Facebook was therefore expected to act on the notice and block the page.

The article reports nearly two lakh orders sent to Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube between March and July. The High Court said affected users must also receive a copy, reflecting natural justice. This gives users a clearer basis to challenge improper orders or seek restoration.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court required authorities to provide the affected social media user with a copy of any order directing a page or account to be blocked. Authorities must also notify the intermediary, such as Facebook. The court treated user notification as an obligation arising from the principles of natural justice.

The ruling followed a petition by Haryana 24 News Network. Its Facebook page had been blocked after the superintendent of police in Yamuna Nagar sent an order to Facebook. The company told the court it had received no prior notice before the page was blocked. The court also found that the issuing officer lacked the required rank.

The decision matters because blocking orders are widely used. The article reports nearly two lakh orders sent to three major platforms between March and July. Giving users the order makes the action visible and gives them information needed to challenge an unlawful or mistaken block.

The High Court restored Haryana 24 News Network’s Facebook page because the blocking notice violated the applicable rules. The notice had been issued by the superintendent of police in Yamuna Nagar, but the court observed that only an officer of deputy inspector general of police rank or higher could issue this kind of notice.

The police said the page was allegedly being used by one of the company’s directors to intimidate an extortion victim and witnesses. They said that director was an accused in the case. The company, however, told the court it had not received prior notice before Facebook blocked the page. The court ordered restoration after examining the procedure.

This example shows that authorities must follow both the required process and the required chain of authorization. The article also says affected users should receive the order itself. Those safeguards may become increasingly important as blocking orders continue to be issued at a large scale.

Authorities reportedly sent nearly two lakh orders to Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube between March and July. These orders directed the platforms to take down content. The article describes the figure as roughly 1,275 orders every day, showing how frequently government blocking requests were issued during that period.

One order does not necessarily concern just one item. The article notes that each blocking order may cover hundreds of individual posts, pieces of content, or accounts. The total therefore represents orders sent to platforms, not necessarily the total number of individual posts or accounts ultimately affected.

The scale helps explain why the High Court’s procedural ruling matters. Instagram received nearly one lakh orders, Facebook about 80,000, and YouTube nearly 15,000. The figures point to a large and continuing administrative system in which clear notices and lawful authorization are important for users and platforms.

When users are not told why their account or content was blocked, they lose the information needed to understand the decision. They may not know which post was targeted, what authority acted, or what rule was allegedly breached. That makes it harder to correct an error, present an explanation, or ask for restoration.

The Haryana 24 News Network case shows the problem. The company told the court it had received no prior notice before its Facebook page was blocked. The High Court then said authorities must give affected users a copy of the order, even though the 2021 IT Rules do not expressly require that notification.

The article links this requirement to natural justice. In general, notice makes an official decision more transparent and gives the affected person a fair chance to respond. The article does not set out a separate appeal process, but access to the order gives users a basis for challenging an improper block.

The Sahyog portal facilitates the sending of government blocking notices to online platforms. Central and state agencies issued most of the orders through the portal, according to the report cited in the article. The system provides a channel for authorities to send requests to companies that host or distribute online content.

Meta owns Facebook and Instagram and has integrated its Application Programming Interface with the Sahyog portal. That connection helps Meta receive government orders through the system and comply with them. In the case before the court, the police separately ordered Facebook to disable Haryana 24 News Network’s page in India.

The article reports 2,312 blocking orders sent to 19 online platforms through Sahyog between October 2024 and October 2025. It also reports nearly two lakh orders to Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube between March and July. The contrasting figures cover different periods and platform groups, but both show the growing importance of formal notice systems.

The principles of natural justice are basic rules of fair decision-making. They generally require an authority to tell a person about a proposed action and give that person a reasonable chance to respond. They also support an impartial decision-maker and a decision based on relevant information. The article specifically relies on the notice-and-response principle.

Applied to social media blocks, the affected user should be told that authorities have ordered a page, account, or content to be taken down. A copy of the order helps identify the authority, the target, and the stated basis for the action. The user can then explain, correct, or challenge the decision. In the case, the company said it had received no prior notice.

The High Court held that notification was required even though the 2021 IT Rules did not expressly say so. This principle matters especially as blocking orders become more common. It adds procedural accountability to a system involving platforms, police, and other government agencies.