The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has ordered the immediate restoration of a verified Facebook page belonging to Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, ruling that the government’s directive to block the account was executed through an unauthorized and procedurally flawed process. In a significant decision, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya determined that the state’s failure to notify the media entity before ordering the removal of its content violated fundamental tenets of natural justice. The court emphasized that the authority to block digital content rests with senior officials, specifically those of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) or above, and that this power cannot be delegated to lower-ranking officers.

The petitioner had challenged an intimation issued on August 21, 2026, which led to the blocking of its Facebook page under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. While the state government argued that the page was being used to intimidate witnesses and victims in an ongoing criminal case involving one of the company's directors, the court found the method of enforcement legally unsustainable. Because the order was issued by a Superintendent of Police, who does not hold the rank required by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the court declared the directive invalid.

Justice Dahiya underscored that the digital landscape necessitates a rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary censorship. The judgment clarifies that even when a government agency suspects unlawful content is being hosted, it must comply with strict hierarchical requirements. By usurping power not vested in his office, the Superintendent of Police bypassed the statutory framework intended to check such administrative actions. Furthermore, the court noted that the state failed to demonstrate that the required monthly reviews of such takedown intimations were conducted, leaving the block in place for over a month without necessary institutional oversight.

A critical aspect of the ruling addresses the lack of notice provided to the entity targeted by the takedown order. Under the prevailing rules, an intermediary—in this instance, Meta Platforms Inc.—is expected to disable access to information upon receiving a reasoned intimation from the government. However, the court found that by keeping the content creator in the dark, the current practice effectively stripped the party of its right to contest the allegations or seek immediate redressal. Justice Dahiya noted, “Every procedure established by law has to be fair and reasonable, which can only be when it has not violated the basic tenets of natural justice, which includes the right to a fair hearing.”

The court held that reading the requirement for notice into the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, is essential to ensure they remain constitutionally valid. By forcing the petitioner to discover the restriction only through a message left by Meta, the government effectively denied the company its right to defend its reputation and business operations. The judgment explicitly stated, “Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. This will make the procedure of sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 compliant of the primary tenets of natural justice and constitutionally valid.”

Beyond the specific circumstances of this case, the ruling serves as a broader precedent for how government authorities interact with digital intermediaries. The court’s rejection of the argument that the petitioner should have exhausted the internal grievance redressal mechanism of the platform highlights that such a remedy is ineffective if the user is not even aware of the reasoning behind the restriction or the material relied upon to trigger it. The court concluded that relegating the petitioner to a grievance officer would be a futile exercise in the absence of transparency and prior notice.

The operative order requires the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta Platforms Inc. to restore the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited within twenty-four hours of receiving a certified copy of the court’s decision. Furthermore, the ruling mandates that if any future action is taken to target information on the page, the government must furnish a copy of the intimation to the petitioner immediately upon issuing it to the intermediary. This requirement is intended to rectify the procedural imbalance that allowed the state to act unilaterally without affording the affected entity an opportunity to present its case.

This decision reflects a growing judicial emphasis on ensuring that digital rights are protected against overreach by law enforcement agencies. By mandating that the government provide clear, reasoned notifications to users whose accounts are targeted, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has placed a significant check on the implementation of takedown orders. The case concludes with the petitioner having secured the restoration of its digital platform, pending any future actions by the state that strictly adhere to the established legal guidelines and the principles of natural justice.

The matter is now effectively resolved regarding the immediate restoration of the page, with clear judicial instructions preventing the recurrence of such procedural lapses. Moving forward, authorities within the state will be required to ensure that any request for content removal or account blocking is handled by an officer of the rank of DIGP or higher and that all affected parties are duly informed to maintain the transparency necessary in a democratic legal system.