Chandigarh: For 45 days, the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network was inaccessible in India. The company’s directors received neither a notice nor an opportunity to be heard. They learnt of the restriction only on 21 August, when a message from Meta appeared on the page.
The message said access had been restricted “pursuant to a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement” under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provision concerns an intermediary’s loss of legal safe-harbour protection if it fails to remove or disable access to unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge of it. The company was given no further explanation.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has since set aside the notice. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the Superintendent of Police (SP), Yamuna Nagar, who had directed Meta to disable access to the page, lacked the authority to issue such a direction.
The state did not dispute the underlying facts. Appearing for Haryana, Additional Advocate General Bhupender Singh told the court that Mohit Verma, a director of the company, was an accused in an extortion FIR registered on 6 August. The SP had approached Meta, he argued, because Verma had allegedly used the page to post videos and send messages intended to intimidate the complainant and witnesses.
The court examined the applicable rules. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, an intermediary must act within 36 hours of receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content through a court order or a reasoned written intimation from an authorised officer. Where the intimation comes from the police administration, the officer must be at least of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) and specially authorised by the government.
The SP did not meet the rank requirement, a point the state conceded.
Haryana argued, however, that the SP had been authorised to act as a delegatee of the state government. The court rejected this argument, holding that a power subject to a prescribed minimum-rank requirement could not be delegated to an officer below that rank. The state’s counsel could not identify any rule permitting such delegation, and the notice itself made no reference to an order conferring the power on the SP.
“The Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him,” Justice Dahiya wrote, describing the action as “sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power”.
The court identified a further procedural lapse. The rules require every such intimation to be reviewed once a month by an officer of at least the rank of Secretary, to assess whether the action remains necessary and proportionate. More than a month had elapsed since the notice was issued, but the state produced no evidence that the required review had taken place.
Haryana also argued that the company should have approached Meta’s Grievance Officer under Rule 3(2), which provides for grievance redressal by intermediaries.
The court declined to direct the company to pursue that remedy, holding that doing so without access to the underlying notice would be futile. The reasoning has implications beyond this case.
Justice Dahiya noted that the rules do not provide users with a hearing before content is blocked. As the petitioner had not challenged that aspect of the framework, the court left the issue open. However, it held that a post-blocking remedy could not be meaningful unless the affected user knew what action had been taken and why.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India, the court held that a copy of the intimation must be provided to the affected user when it is sent to the intermediary. This requirement, it said, must be read into Rule 3(2) as an element of natural justice.
Neither the SP nor Meta had provided the company with a copy of the intimation. Approaching Meta’s Grievance Officer in those circumstances would therefore be “a futile exercise”, the court said.
In its order dated 5 October, Justice Dahiya directed the SP to instruct Meta to restore the page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. Meta was required to comply urgently. The court did not issue notice to Meta, observing that it was passing no order adverse to the platform’s interests.
The court also left open the possibility of fresh action. If the state found prohibited content on the page being used for unlawful activity, an authorised officer could issue a fresh intimation to Meta. A copy, however, would have to be provided to the company immediately after the intimation was sent.
The company was represented by advocates Namit Khurana and Gagan Budhiraja while Dheeraj Jain and Amrita Singh represented the Union of India.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)
Also Read: MeitY sent ‘advisory’ to Meta on day of CJP’s protest call, asked it to review Facebook, Insta algos