Back
Seeks Meta's Response on MP Mehdi's Facebook Page Suspension
The on Tuesday issued notice to and the in a petition filed by MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, challenging the complete restriction of access to his Facebook page without prior notice or identification of any offending content. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the matter, directed the respondents to file their replies and listed the case for further hearing on .
The petition, filed through advocates and , contends that the restriction—imposed since —violates the petitioner's under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. Mehdi, who represents the Srinagar Lok Sabha constituency, argues that his Facebook page, titled 'Ruhullah Mehdi', serves not merely as a personal social media account but as a critical platform for communicating with constituents, disseminating information, and engaging in democratic dialogue. The plea asserts that the has severely impaired his ability to discharge his public duties.
High Court Takes Up the Plea
During the proceedings, counsel for Mehdi submitted that the MP had been given no notice of the alleged violation or the specific content that prompted Meta to disable the page.
"Nobody has pointed out the offending material on his page,"
the counsel argued, adding that the petitioner had sent a representation to Meta's grievance redressal officer but received no response within the mandatory 24-hour period prescribed under the
.
The court issued notice after hearing the submissions, but declined to grant any at this stage, stating it would not pass orders without hearing the other side. Justice Sharma directed the respondents—including the , the , and —to file detailed replies before the next date.
Meta Cites
Appearing for
, counsel informed the court that the page had been taken down
"pursuant to a law enforcement agency's notice"
and sought time to place the relevant documents before the bench. This disclosure immediately raised questions about the
available to users when government-directed takedowns occur.
The petitioner's counsel countered that even if a existed, Meta was still obligated to follow the under the IT Rules and to inform the user of the reasons for restriction. He emphasized that without any identification of specific unlawful content, the amounted to an .
Constitutional Rights at Stake
Mehdi's plea squarely invokes the fundamental right to
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). It argues that the restriction is not saved by the
under Article 19(2) because no specific offending material has been identified, nor has any
been afforded. The petition states:
"The statutory framework permits the removal or disabling of access to specific unlawful content upon
; however, it does not contemplate or authorise a
on an entire account or page without identifying specific offending material and without adherence to the limitations prescribed under
of India."
This argument strikes at the heart of the tension between governmental powers to police online content and the constitutional protections for expression. The petition further contends that the restriction impairs Mehdi's right to hold office as an elected representative by cutting off a vital channel of communication with his electorate.
Focus on
A significant portion of the petitioner's case rests on Meta's alleged failure to comply with the IT Rules, 2021. Under , a social media intermediary must acknowledge a user's complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days. Mehdi's counsel argued that despite approaching the grievance redressal officer, no substantive reply was received, effectively denying the MP any remedy.
The case highlights a recurring issue in : the and the lack of transparency when platforms act on government requests. The petitioner has demanded that Meta disclose the precise that triggered the action and the specific content alleged to be unlawful.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This proceeding could set an important precedent regarding the that must accompany account-level restrictions. If the court holds that even a does not justify a without notice and an opportunity to be heard, it would reinforce the protections that the IT Rules were designed to ensure.
For legal practitioners, the case underscores the need to carefully examine the interplay between , government takedown requests, and . The outcome may influence how platforms handle such requests in future, particularly for accounts belonging to public figures.
The matter is now listed for , when the court will hear responses from Meta and the Centre. Until then, Mehdi's Facebook page remains inaccessible, and the digital platform for his political engagement remains curtailed. The legal community will be watching closely as the court navigates this balance between national security concerns and constitutional freedoms in the digital age.
