Representative image. Photo: Aleksandr Zykov from Russia, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
Why it matters
Police and government requests to take down posts and pages are common, and until now users often found out only when their content disappeared. The ruling gives people in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh a right to see the notice and know why, which they need to challenge it. It also limits who in the police can send such requests.
Anyone whose social media page is taken down on a government or police request must be given a copy of that request when it is sent to the platform, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in a content blocking case. The court also said only a specially authorised police officer of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) rank or above can send such a request.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya gave the ruling on a petition by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, whose verified Facebook page was blocked in India on 21 August 2026. The legal news site LiveLaw reported the judgment on 18 and 20 October.
Why the Facebook page was blocked
The block followed a notice that the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Yamuna Nagar sent to Meta, which owns Facebook, under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The company said it was never told about the notice and never received a copy, so it had no idea what it was accused of or what material the police relied on.
Haryana defended the content blocking in court. According to the state, one of the company’s directors is an accused in a criminal case registered on 6 August 2026 and allegedly used the page to post videos and messages intimidating the victim and witnesses. The court did not rule on those allegations, which remain unproven.
What the High Court said about content blocking notices
The court made two main findings on content blocking. The first was about who can send a notice. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, a police request to a platform must come from an officer not below DIG rank who has been specially authorised by the government. An SP ranks below that, and the rules do not allow the power to be handed down, so the court held the notice was issued without jurisdiction and Meta was not bound to act on it. It also noted there was no record of the monthly review that an officer of at least Secretary rank is meant to carry out.
The second finding goes further. The 2021 rules do not expressly say the affected user must be told. The court read that duty into them anyway, as a basic requirement of natural justice: a copy of the notice must go to the user at the same time it goes to the platform. It relied on the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v Union of India, which treated a fair hearing as a core part of due process.
The state had argued that the company should simply use Meta’s grievance system to get the page back. The court rejected that, saying a complaint is pointless if the user does not know the grounds for the block. LiveLaw reported that the judge described the SP’s action as “sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power”.
What happens to the page and future content blocking
The court set aside the 21 August notice. The Yamuna Nagar SP must tell Meta to restore the page within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order, LiveLaw reported. If the government later finds unlawful content on the page, an authorised officer can issue a fresh notice, but the company must receive a copy immediately.
The judge did not decide whether users are entitled to be heard before content blocking takes effect, because the company had not raised that point. So the ruling secures a right to know after the fact, not a right to object in advance.
How this fits with other court rulings on online blocking
Section 79(3)(b) is one of the main routes for content blocking used by police and ministries. It works by putting pressure on platforms: a company that ignores a valid government notice can lose its legal protection from liability for what users post. A separate power under Section 69A of the same Act lets the Centre block content through a committee process.
Courts have been asked several times whether users must be told about content blocking that affects them. The Delhi High Court earlier directed the government to give a satirist a copy of the order blocking his website and to hear him after the fact. In 2023, the Karnataka High Court upheld the Centre’s power to block entire accounts under Section 69A in a case brought by X Corp.
The Punjab and Haryana ruling binds authorities in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, though other courts may cite it. For news pages, small businesses and creators in those states, it means a page blocked on a police request should come with paperwork that explains why, and a notice signed by a junior officer can be challenged.
NewsPlainly will follow any appeal against the ruling in its tech coverage.
Frequently asked questions
Who can ask a platform to block content under the IT Rules?
For police, an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General who has been specially authorised by the government, according to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's reading of Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021.
Will I be told if my social media page is blocked on a police request?
In Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, the High Court has said a copy of the notice must be given to the user when it is sent to the platform.
Can I object before my content is blocked?
The court did not decide that question, because the petitioner had not raised it.