HC: Social media user must get govt order of content blocking

The Punjab and Haryana High Court required the government to furnish the affected user with a copy of its take-down or blocking intimation. The notice must be sent when the government communicates the order to the social-media intermediary. This protects the user’s ability to understand and challenge the action.

The court considered a page blocked after a Haryana police order sent to Meta. It said the user must know the intimation, its contents, and the material relied upon. Without that information, the user cannot properly defend the page before the platform’s grievance officer.

The 2021 IT Rules do not expressly require this notice before the government sends an intimation. However, the court read the duty into the rules through natural justice. It said the procedure must be fair, reasonable, and constitutionally valid. The ruling strengthens post-decisional safeguards for blocked users.

A government content-blocking or take-down order is an official intimation directing a social-media intermediary to remove data or information, or block access to a page. In this case, the order was communicated to Meta under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the 2021 rules.

Its practical effect can be severe. The platform may remove the page’s information or prevent access to the page in India. Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited said Meta blocked its page after an order from Haryana police on August 21. The dispute reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The court focused on what happens to the affected user after such action. The user must receive the government’s intimation and the material behind it. That knowledge supports a post-decisional hearing before the platform’s grievance officer. The court said this makes the process fair and consistent with natural justice.

The government or its authorised agency sends an intimation seeking removal of data or blocking of a social-media page. The social-media platform, called the intermediary, receives that intimation and acts on the page or information. The user who uploaded or runs the page is the person directly affected.

In the case, Haryana police sought action, and Meta blocked the page in India belonging to Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The court said the user must receive the intimation, its contents, and the material relied upon. That information enables the user to approach the platform’s grievance officer.

The process therefore has three linked roles. Government authorities initiate the restriction, the platform implements or reviews it, and the user responds through the available grievance mechanism. The court held that notifying the user is an essential obligation, even though the 2021 rules do not expressly state it. This supports a fair procedure.

The blocked social-media page had to be restored within 24 hours after the SSP received a certified copy of the court’s order. The deadline applied to the page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, which had been blocked in India by Meta.

The court issued this direction after finding that the blocking order came from the senior superintendent of police, Yamunanagar. It held that the officer was not authorised under the 2021 IT Rules to seek blocking. The rules require the authorised officer not to be below the rank of IGP.

The 24-hour period is therefore tied to the certified court order, not necessarily to the original blocking date. It gives the authorities a clear, short timetable for restoring access. The order also shows that a court can require immediate corrective action when a page is blocked through an unauthorised process.

A user who does not receive the blocking intimation may be unable to understand why the page was restricted. Without the order’s contents and the material relied upon, the user cannot meaningfully respond to the allegations or challenge the platform’s action.

The court connected this problem to the post-decisional hearing before the platform’s grievance officer. It said the user must know that action has been taken and why. In the case, the page was blocked after an intimation from Haryana police to Meta. The user was therefore directly affected by a government-initiated restriction.

The consequence is not merely inconvenience. The court said the lack of notice defeats the very purpose of the grievance mechanism. It also violates the basic tenets of natural justice, including a fair hearing. Supplying the intimation gives the user a real opportunity to defend the page and seek redress.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court found the Haryana police action unauthorized because the blocking order was issued by the senior superintendent of police, Yamunanagar. The court rejected the government’s argument that blocking powers had been delegated or relegated to the SSP.

Under the 2021 Information Technology Rules, the authorised officer seeking blocking must not be below the rank of Inspector General of Police, or IGP. The court said the SSP therefore lacked the required authority to issue the order in this case. It treated the action as a violation of the rules.

This finding affected the page’s continued blocking. The court directed that the social-media page be restored within 24 hours of a certified copy of its order. The ruling also stressed that the authority requirement matters alongside notice and hearing. A government restriction must follow the procedure and be issued by the officer authorised under the rules.

Natural justice is the basic requirement that legal procedures be fair and reasonable. One central part is the right to know the case against you and receive a fair opportunity to respond. The court said these principles apply when government action can remove information or block access to a social-media page.

A user cannot defend a page without knowing the blocking intimation, its contents, and the material relied upon. The court therefore required a copy of the intimation to be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. This supports a post-decisional hearing before the platform’s grievance officer.

The safeguard matters because blocking directly affects the user’s access and ability to communicate through the page. The court said that withholding notice defeats grievance redressal and violates basic natural-justice principles. Reading this obligation into the 2021 rules makes the procedure fair and constitutionally valid, even though the rules do not expressly state it.