Case at a Glance
A news company’s Facebook page was blocked in India after the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, sent Meta an intimation under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Intermediary Rules. The page owner was never given a copy. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the SP, being below the rank of Deputy Inspector General, had no power to issue the intimation, and that natural justice requires a copy of any such intimation to be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. The intimation was set aside and the page ordered to be restored.
On 6 August 2026, FIR No. 353 was registered under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, naming a director of the petitioner company as an accused. The State alleged that videos and messages were posted through the company’s Facebook page to intimidate the victim and witnesses. On 21 August 2026, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, sent an intimation to Meta Platforms Inc. under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the 2021 Rules, and access to the page was disabled. Meta displayed a notice that the page was restricted in India under Section 79(3)(b) following a government or law-enforcement notice.
The petitioner, Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, said it got no prior notice and was never given a copy of the intimation. It filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the intimation and restoration of the page. The State argued that the SP had been delegated the power and that the petitioner should first use Meta’s grievance mechanism under Rule 3(2). Notice to Meta was dispensed with as no order adverse to it was proposed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a police officer below the rank of DIG issue a blocking intimation under Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, and is the affected user entitled to a copy of that intimation?
Rank cannot be delegated downwards, and the user must know the grounds
Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 requires an intermediary to remove or disable unlawful content within 36 hours on a court order or a reasoned written intimation from an authorised officer. For police, that officer must be not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General and specially authorised by the Appropriate Government, and intimations are subject to a monthly Secretary-level review. The SP was concededly below DIG rank. The Court held that where the Rules fix the rank, “there cannot be delegation of such power to any other officer of a lower rank,” that “the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him,” and called it “sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power.” It also noted that more than a month had passed without the State showing any monthly review.
On the alternative remedy, the Court observed that the Rule 3(2) grievance mechanism provides no hearing before the intimation is issued; a post-decisional hearing is meaningful only if the user knows what the intimation says and what material it relies on. Relying on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 04 SC CK 0002, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366, and the principle that “Every procedure established by law has to be fair and reasonable,” the Court read the Rules to require that “a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary.” It found “no justifiable ground to relegate the petitioner to the Grievance Officer.” It left open whether the absence of a pre-decisional hearing is constitutionally valid, as that was not challenged.
What the Court Actually Held
- A police intimation under Rule 3(1)(d) must come from an officer not below DIG rank; that power cannot be delegated to a lower-ranked officer, so the SP’s intimation was without jurisdiction.
- Natural justice requires that a copy of a blocking intimation be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary.
- Without a copy of the intimation, the Rule 3(2) grievance mechanism is not an effective alternative remedy.
- The intimation dated 21 August 2026 was set aside; the SP must instruct Meta within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy to restore the page, and any future intimation on similar grounds must be supplied to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It gives social-media users a practical right to know why their content or page was blocked.
- It enforces the rank safeguard in Rule 3(1)(d), limiting which police officers can trigger takedowns.
- It applies Madhyamam Broadcasting’s fairness principle to everyday online content blocking.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Page Owners and Creators
- If your page or post is blocked on a government notice, ask for a copy of the intimation and check who issued it.
- An intimation from a police officer below DIG rank is open to challenge.
- A writ petition may lie without first exhausting the platform’s grievance process if you were never told the grounds.
For Counsel
- Check the issuing officer’s rank, the special authorisation and any monthly review record under Rule 3(1)(d).
- Cite this order with Madhyamam Broadcasting to seek a copy of the intimation and the material relied on.
- Note the limits: the Court did not rule on whether a pre-decisional hearing is constitutionally required.
Key Takeaways
- Only authorised officers of the prescribed rank can issue Rule 3(1)(d) intimations.
- Users must be given a copy of a blocking intimation when it is sent to the platform.
- Platform grievance mechanisms are not an adequate remedy if the user does not know the grounds.
- The Court ordered the Facebook page restored and protected the petitioner’s right to future copies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can order Facebook or Instagram to block content under the IT Rules?
Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules, a court order or a reasoned written intimation from an authorised government officer (not below Joint Secretary) or, for police, an officer not below DIG rank specially authorised by the Appropriate Government.
Is a user entitled to know why their page was blocked?
According to this judgment, yes: a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary, so the user can meaningfully challenge it.
Did the Court say content linked to a criminal case can never be blocked?
No. It set aside this intimation for lack of jurisdiction and directed that if the government again finds content unlawful, it may issue an intimation under Rule 3(1)(d) but must give the petitioner a copy immediately.
Conclusion
The judgment does not decide whether the content was lawful. It decides who may order a takedown and what the affected user is entitled to know. By reading a duty to share the intimation into the Rules, the High Court has made the grievance process more than a formality.
Practical takeaway: When content is blocked on a government notice, demand the intimation, check the issuing officer’s rank and authorisation, and challenge it if it falls short of Rule 3(1)(d).
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com