Punjab & Haryana High Court: Users Must Get Government Blocking Notices

The government cannot direct a social media platform to restrict a user’s content and leave the affected person without access to the very communication needed to challenge that action. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made this clear, holding that social media users must be given a copy of the government intimation for content blocking immediately after it is sent to the intermediary.

In Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others, CWP No. 30190 of 2026, decided on 5 October 2026, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the obligation to disclose such an intimation is inherent in the principles of natural justice. Although the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, do not expressly prescribe this disclosure requirement, the Court held that it must be read into the Rules to make the grievance redressal mechanism meaningful.

The Court also set aside a content-blocking intimation issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, finding that the officer did not meet the rank requirement prescribed under the Rules. The State had also failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory monthly review requirement.

The judgement is significant for two related reasons: it recognises that affected users must be told the basis of a government-directed content restriction, and it reinforces that statutory powers must be exercised by the officers authorised to exercise them, subject to the safeguards laid down by law.

Case Details

How the Facebook Page Was Blocked

The petitioner, Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, operated a verified Facebook page. Access to the page was blocked in India from 21 August 2026.

The company’s directors learnt of the restriction through a notification displayed by Meta Platforms Inc. The notification stated that access had been restricted pursuant to a notice from the Government of India or law enforcement under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The company had not received a copy of the government’s intimation. It therefore approached the High Court, seeking to have the communication quashed and its Facebook page restored.

The State did not dispute the basic facts. It submitted that one of the company’s directors, Mohit Verma, was an accused in FIR No. 353 dated 6 August 2026, registered under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the State, the director had been posting videos and sending messages through the page to intimidate the victim and witnesses.

On that basis, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, had issued an intimation to Meta directing it to disable access to the page.

The State defended the action by arguing that the Superintendent of Police had been authorised by the State Government to exercise the relevant power. It also contended that the company could have approached Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the 2021 Rules.

The High Court examined whether the intimation had been issued by an authorised officer and, more importantly, whether the affected company could reasonably be expected to challenge a restriction without being given the underlying communication.

What the IT Rules Require for Government-Directed Content Blocking

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides conditional protection from liability to intermediaries, subject to the requirements laid down in the provision. Section 79(3)(b) addresses circumstances in which an intermediary fails to act expeditiously after receiving the requisite knowledge or notification concerning unlawful information or its use for an unlawful act.

Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, deals with the relevant form of knowledge for this purpose. It contemplates a court order or a reasoned written intimation issued by an authorised officer of the appropriate government or its agency.

Also Read: Defamation, Biopics and ‘Based on a True Story’: Can Someone Stop a Film About Their Life in India?

The Rules also prescribe safeguards governing who may issue such an intimation and how the power must be exercised.

Rank and Authorisation of the Officer

Where the intimation is issued through the police administration, the relevant proviso requires the authorised officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) and to be specially authorised by the appropriate Government.

Mandatory Monthly Review Requirement

The rules further require periodic review, once every month, by an officer not below the rank of secretary to the concerned appropriate government. The purpose is to ensure that the intimation remains necessary, proportionate and consistent with Section 79(3)(b).

These requirements are not merely administrative formalities. They form part of the statutory framework governing the exercise of the power.

Also Read: Someone Cloned My Voice or Face With AI: What Can an Indian Artist Do Legally?

Why the High Court Set Aside the Police Intimation

The Court found that the intimation in the present case had been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, who was admittedly below the rank of DIGP.

The State argued that the Superintendent of Police had been authorised as a delegatee. The Court rejected that defence because the Rules specifically prescribe the rank of the officer empowered to issue such an intimation, and no provision was shown that permitted the power to be delegated to an officer of a lower rank.

The Court explained:

“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.”

The Court also characterised the action as being in “flagrant violation of statutory provisions” and as “sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power.”

Also Read: Film Piracy Leaked Online? Legal Action Within 24 Hours in India

Failure to Comply With the Monthly Review Requirement

There was a further problem. More than a month had elapsed since the intimation was issued, but the State had not demonstrated that the required monthly review by a secretary-level officer had taken place.

The failure to establish compliance with this safeguard reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the impugned intimation could not stand. The communication was held to be without jurisdiction and was not required to be acted upon by Meta.

Legal Significance of the Judgement

The ruling therefore addresses more than the identity of the officer who issued the communication. It underscores that statutory authority must be exercised within the limits set by the Rules, including the prescribed rank, authorisation and review requirements.

Also Read: Actor, Director or Technician Terminated Mid-Project: Contract Remedies Under Indian Law.

Social Media Users Must Be Given a Copy of the Government Intimation for Content Blocking

The judgement’s wider significance lies in its recognition that an affected user must receive a copy of the government’s intimation when it is sent to the intermediary.

The State had argued that the company could use the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2). The Court, however, examined whether that remedy could be effective when the company had not even been given the communication that led to the restriction.

Rule 3(2) provides a mechanism for users to raise grievances with an intermediary’s Grievance Officer. Under the prescribed framework, complaints are subject to timelines for acknowledgement and resolution.

But a remedy cannot be meaningfully exercised if the affected person does not know the substance of the action being challenged.

Without the intimation, the user may not know precisely what information has been targeted, what legal basis has been invoked or what grounds have been stated by the government. That makes it difficult to formulate a meaningful objection or seek effective redress.

The Court accordingly rejected the suggestion that the petitioner should simply have approached the Grievance Officer despite never receiving a copy of the underlying intimation.

The Court Read the Disclosure Requirement Into the Rules

In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366, which discussed the role of natural justice in ensuring fair procedure.

The High Court held that the disclosure obligation was inherent in the principles of natural justice and necessary to make the grievance redressal mechanism effective.

Also Read: Idea Theft, Script Plagiarism and Film Title Disputes: How Writers and Producers Protect Their Work in India

In its words:

“Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary.”

The Court explained that this requirement would make the procedure under Rule 3(2) consistent with the basic principles of natural justice and constitutionally valid.

The reasoning is straightforward: if the law provides a mechanism to challenge a restriction, the affected person must have sufficient information to use that mechanism. Merely pointing to the existence of a grievance process does not answer the problem created when the underlying government communication is withheld.

The court did not, however, decide whether a hearing must invariably be provided before a content-blocking intimation is issued. It expressly observed that the question of a pre-decisional hearing was not before it because the petitioner had not challenged that aspect.

The holding must therefore be understood in its proper context: the Court required disclosure of the intimation when it is sent to the intermediary; it did not establish a universal right to a pre-decisional hearing in every content-blocking case.

Also Read: AI-Generated Fake Nude Images: Minnesota vs. xAI and the Future of Deepfake Law

What Directions Did the High Court Issue?

After setting aside the intimation dated 21 August 2026, the High Court issued two principal directions.

1. Restoration of the Facebook Page

First, the Superintendent of Police was directed to instruct Meta Platforms Inc. to restore the petitioner’s Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Meta was directed to comply urgently.

2. Future Lawful Content Restrictions

Second, the Court clarified that if the Government subsequently found that information, data or a communication link on the petitioner’s Facebook page was prohibited by law and was being used for illegal activities, it could take action through an authorised officer in accordance with Rule 3(1)(d). In that event, however, a copy of the intimation had to be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it was sent to the intermediary.

The second direction is important. The Court did not grant the petitioner immunity from future lawful action. It required that any future action comply with the applicable legal framework, including the obligation to disclose the intimation.

What the Judgment Means for Social Media Users

The decision reinforces an important procedural principle: a person affected by a government-directed content restriction must be given the information necessary to understand and challenge it.

For users and organisations whose social media pages are blocked, the judgment highlights several points:

• A copy of the intimation matters: Where the action falls within Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3, the affected user must receive a copy of the relevant government intimation immediately after it is sent to the intermediary.
• The officer’s authority matters: Police intimations must comply with the prescribed rank and authorisation requirements.
• Monthly review cannot be overlooked: The Rules require periodic review by an officer of the prescribed seniority.
• A grievance mechanism must be meaningful: A user who does not know the grounds or contents of the action may be unable to challenge it effectively.
• Future action remains possible: The judgment does not prevent lawful content restrictions; it requires compliance with the statutory safeguards and disclosure obligation recognised by the Court.

If a platform notification states that a page or post has been restricted pursuant to a government or law-enforcement notice under Section 79(3)(b), an affected user should preserve that notification and seek a copy of the underlying intimation. Depending on the circumstances, legal advice may be appropriate to determine the available remedies.

Also Read: AI-Generated Evidence in Indian Courts: Can Deepfakes Prove Guilt?

What the Judgment Does Not Say

The scope of the ruling is as important as its holding.

The High Court did not rule that every government-directed content restriction requires a hearing before the restriction is imposed. It expressly left the question of a pre-decisional hearing open.

Nor did it prohibit the Government from taking lawful action against content alleged to be illegal. Its directions expressly contemplated the possibility of future action against the petitioner’s page, provided the relevant statutory requirements were followed.

The decision concerns the framework of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules. It should not be read as automatically governing every form of online content restriction under different statutory provisions.

These distinctions matter because the judgment’s contribution is specific but significant: it connects the right to seek redress with the practical ability to know and respond to the government’s action.

Why the Decision Matters for Natural Justice and Digital Rights

Government-directed restrictions on online content can have immediate consequences for publishers, businesses, public communicators and individual users. When an account or page becomes inaccessible, the loss may extend beyond visibility to the ability to communicate with an audience and carry on ordinary activities.

The judgment addresses a basic procedural concern in that setting. A grievance mechanism is of limited value if the person expected to use it has not been told what the government communicated to the platform.

By reading the disclosure requirement into Rule 3(2), the High Court connected procedural fairness with an effective remedy. The decision also reinforces the principle that statutory safeguards—including the prescribed rank of the authorised officer and periodic review—must be followed rather than treated as technical details.

For government authorities, the ruling is a reminder that the exercise of statutory power must remain within the boundaries set by law. For intermediaries, it highlights the importance of the legal framework governing government intimations. For affected users, it recognises the importance of receiving the communication needed to understand and challenge the restriction.

The judgment does not place online content beyond lawful regulation. Instead, it insists that restrictions imposed under this framework must be supported by proper authority and accompanied by the procedural fairness required by law.

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others establishes that social media users must be given a copy of the government intimation for content blocking immediately after it is sent to the intermediary, within the statutory framework considered by the Court.

The disclosure requirement ensures that an affected user can understand the action taken and make meaningful use of the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2). The Court also made clear that the authority issuing the intimation must satisfy the prescribed rank and authorisation requirements and that mandatory monthly review cannot simply be assumed to have taken place.

The broader message is one of procedural accountability. The Government may exercise powers granted by law, but those powers must be exercised by the proper authority and in accordance with the safeguards that accompany them. Where a person’s online content is restricted, access to the communication underlying that action can be essential to a fair opportunity to challenge it.

Also Read: Cyber Crime & Online Fraud in India: UPI Fraud, Hacking & Digital Arrest.

Facing a Social Media Blocking Order? Understand Your Legal Rights Before Taking the Next Step

Has your Facebook page, Instagram account, YouTube channel, or other online content been blocked or restricted following a government or law-enforcement notice? Have you been left without a clear explanation of the legal grounds for the action?

You do not have to remain uncertain about your legal options.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasised the importance of furnishing the relevant government intimation to an affected user and complying with the statutory safeguards governing content-blocking action. Depending on the facts of your case, there may be legal remedies worth exploring.

Whether you are a social media user, digital publisher, media organisation, business owner, or content creator, understanding the applicable law is an important first step towards protecting your interests.

Seek Legal Guidance on Social Media Content Blocking and Digital Rights

Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

If your social media account or online content has been blocked, or you have received a government-related takedown notification, you can contact me to discuss your circumstances, understand the applicable legal framework, and explore the remedies that may be available.

• 📞 Call for Legal Consultation: 9650499965
• 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
• ✉️ Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com

Do not leave your legal position unclear. Get informed about your rights and the options available to you.

Legal remedies depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Contacting an advocate does not guarantee a particular outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions About Social Media Content Blocking in India

1. Can the Government Block Social Media Content Without Giving Notice to the User?

In its judgment in Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others, decided on 5 October 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a copy of the government intimation issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, must be furnished to the affected user immediately after it is sent to the social media intermediary. The Court held that this disclosure requirement is inherent in the principles of natural justice and is necessary for the user to meaningfully pursue the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the IT Rules, 2021. The judgment did not establish a universal right to a pre-decisional hearing in every content-blocking case.

2. What Should I Do If My Facebook or Instagram Account Is Blocked Following a Government Order?

If your Facebook, Instagram, YouTube channel, or other online content is restricted following a government or law-enforcement notice, preserve the platform notification and seek a copy of the underlying government intimation. Check the stated legal basis and consider whether the prescribed statutory requirements have been followed. Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to raise a grievance with the platform or seek appropriate legal remedies. Consulting an advocate can help you understand the options available in your particular case.

3. Which Officer Is Authorised to Issue a Government Intimation for Social Media Content Blocking?

Under the proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, a police officer issuing the relevant intimation must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) and must be specially authorised by the appropriate Government. In its October 2026 judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the delegation argument advanced by the State because the Superintendent of Police who issued the intimation was below the prescribed rank and no enabling provision permitting such delegation was shown.

4. Is the Government Required to Review Social Media Content-Blocking Orders?

Yes. Under the framework considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the relevant intimations are subject to periodic review once every month by an officer not below the rank of Secretary to the concerned appropriate Government. The review is intended to ensure that the action remains necessary, proportionate, and consistent with Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In the case before it, the Court noted that the State had not demonstrated that the mandatory monthly review had been carried out.

5. Can I Challenge an Unlawful Social Media Blocking Order in Court?

Depending on the facts, the applicable statutory provisions, and the circumstances in which the restriction was imposed, an affected user or organisation may be able to challenge a government-directed content restriction before the appropriate forum. Relevant issues may include whether the intimation was issued by an authorised officer, whether the prescribed safeguards were followed, and whether the affected user received the required communication. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the intimation in Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others and directed restoration of the petitioner’s Facebook page. However, the availability and outcome of legal remedies depend on the individual case.

Key Takeaways: Punjab and Haryana High Court on Social Media Content Blocking

• Social Media Users Must Receive Government Blocking Notices: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a copy of the government intimation issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, must be furnished to the affected user immediately after it is sent to the intermediary.
• Disclosure Is Essential to Natural Justice: Informing affected users about government content-blocking intimations is necessary to uphold the principles of natural justice and enable meaningful use of the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
• Authorised Officers Must Comply with Statutory Requirements: The Court set aside the intimation issued by a Superintendent of Police after finding that the officer was below the prescribed rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) and that no valid legal basis for the delegation was demonstrated.
• Monthly Review of Content-Blocking Intimations Is Mandatory: The judgment highlighted the requirement for monthly review by an officer not below the rank of Secretary to the appropriate Government. The State failed to demonstrate that the required review had been conducted in this case.
• The Court Ordered Restoration of the Petitioner’s Facebook Page: The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed that the petitioner’s Facebook page be restored within 24 hours of the certified judgment.
• The Judgment Reinforces Procedural Safeguards for Digital Rights: The decision emphasises that government-directed social media content restrictions must comply with applicable statutory requirements and procedural safeguards.
• The Court Did Not Establish a Universal Right to a Pre-Decisional Hearing: The judgment focused on disclosure of the government intimation and compliance with statutory safeguards. It expressly left open the question of whether a hearing before blocking is mandatory in every content-blocking case.
• Legal Remedies May Be Available Against Unlawful Content-Blocking Action: Social media users, digital publishers, media organisations, and other affected parties may consider appropriate legal remedies where a government-directed restriction appears to violate the applicable law or prescribed safeguards. The available remedies depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Case Reference

Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others, CWP No. 30190 of 2026, decided on 5 October 2026 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965