The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has ordered the immediate restoration of a verified Facebook page belonging to Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited , ruling that the previous blocking of the account by local police was legally unsustainable and procedurally flawed . In a significant decision, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya determined that the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, lacked the statutory authority to issue instructions to Meta Platforms Inc. for the removal or disabling of content under the Information Technology Act, 2000 . The court directed that the platform must restore the page to its original status within twenty-four hours of receiving the certified order, emphasizing that the state’s failure to adhere to the prescribed legal framework rendered the blocking order void .

The dispute arose after the media company discovered its page had been restricted in India on August 21, 2026 . The only information provided to the organization was a notification from Meta stating that access had been limited pursuant to a notice from law enforcement under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act . The media house, claiming to have been kept in total darkness regarding the specific allegations, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the notice and seeking an immediate resumption of service, citing substantial business and reputational damage.

Jurisdiction and Delegated Authority

During the proceedings, the state government acknowledged that an FIR had been registered against one of the company's directors in early August 2026 . It was alleged that the director used the Facebook page to intimidate witnesses and victims, prompting the Superintendent of Police to issue the blocking notice. The state argued that the official was a valid delegatee of the government for such administrative actions. However, the High Court rejected this contention, pointing to the stringent requirements set out in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 .

Justice Dahiya underscored that the 2021 Rules mandate that any intimation issued by police administration must come from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), who has been specifically authorized by the state government for this purpose. The court clarified that the power to issue such directives is not subject to arbitrary delegation to lower-ranked officials. Observing that the state failed to provide any evidence of a valid delegation or consistent monthly reviews as required by the rules, the court concluded that the Superintendent of Police acted in excess of his jurisdiction.

The court characterized the state's actions in its judgment, noting: “It is evident that the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him in issuing the said intimation in flagrant violation of statutory provisions; this is sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power .”

Strengthening Due Process Requirements

Beyond the jurisdictional error, the High Court addressed the broader implications of how social media accounts are restricted in the country. The petitioner argued that they were denied the right to be heard before the blocking took place. While the court did not rule on the necessity of a pre-decisional hearing , it established that the principles of natural justice require the affected party to be informed of the evidence and the legal basis for any restrictive action at the time it occurs.

The bench held that relegating the petitioner to the intermediary’s internal grievance redressal mechanism would be ineffective if the user is unaware of the specific intimation sent to the service provider. By failing to provide a copy of the notice to the page owner, the state effectively prevented the company from preparing a defense. Drawing upon established precedents regarding fair procedures and the tenets of natural justice, the court integrated these requirements into the operation of the 2021 Rules to ensure constitutional validity.

According to the judgment, “Although sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 does not explicitly lay down the requirement for the Government or its agency to notify the user/person responsible for uploading the data or information on the social media page before sending the intimation, it is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to be read into the Rule.”

Future Compliance and Accountability

The ruling mandates that all future intimations issued by authorized government agencies to intermediaries must be simultaneously shared with the affected user. This ensures that transparency is maintained and that citizens retain their right to challenge content removal or account blocking. The court noted that these measures are critical to prevent the “futile exercise” of navigating grievance mechanisms without knowledge of the underlying allegations.

The court’s direction to restore the Facebook page is absolute, and the responsibility for compliance rests with the state authorities and the digital intermediary. If the government determines that specific content on the page remains prohibited under existing law, it must follow the strictly defined procedure involving officers of the appropriate rank and provide the petitioner with a copy of the formal intimation immediately upon its issuance.

This decision reinforces the principle that administrative powers under the digital regulatory framework are subject to strict scrutiny and must be exercised in compliance with statutory limitations. By affirming that jurisdictional requirements cannot be bypassed through unauthorized delegation, the High Court has reaffirmed that legal authority for digital restrictions must strictly align with the mandates set by the legislature. As the case reaches this stage, the petitioner is expected to regain full access to its digital presence, while the government remains under obligation to adhere to the court's standards for future regulatory interventions involving the removal of online content.