Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates User Notification for Content Blocking
The court ruled that social media users must receive government notifications regarding content blocking to uphold natural justice.
High Court mandates that users must be informed of government notifications for content blocking.
The court found the initial blocking of a Facebook page to be jurisdictionally invalid.
Users must be aware of the reasons for blocking to effectively challenge such actions.
In a significant ruling on October 20, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared that social media users must receive a copy of any government notification sent to intermediaries for content blocking. This decision emphasizes the necessity of transparency in the process to uphold the principles of natural justice. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya highlighted that while the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, do not explicitly require prior notification to users, the obligation to inform them is implicit in ensuring fairness.
The case arose from a petition by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, which challenged the blocking of its Facebook page on August 21, 2026. The company argued that it had not been notified about the reasons for the blocking, which was initiated by the Haryana Police's communication to Meta Platforms Inc. The police claimed that one of the company's directors was involved in a criminal case and was using the page to intimidate witnesses, prompting the blocking action.
However, the High Court found that the notification issued by the Superintendent of Police was invalid as it did not comply with the rank requirements set forth in the 2021 Rules. The court noted that only officers of a rank not below Deputy Inspector General of Police are authorized to issue such notifications, and thus, the action taken was beyond jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the court rejected the state's argument that the petitioner should utilize Meta's grievance redressal mechanism to restore the Facebook page. It asserted that effective grievance redressal requires users to be informed of the grounds for blocking, which was not the case here. The court emphasized that without knowledge of the reasons behind the blocking, users cannot adequately defend themselves, undermining the purpose of the grievance mechanism.
In its conclusion, the High Court ordered the immediate restoration of the Facebook page and mandated that any future notifications regarding content blocking must be shared with the affected users. This ruling reinforces the necessity for transparency and fairness in the digital content regulation process, ensuring that users are not left in the dark about actions that affect their online presence.
