A news company’s Facebook page has been unreachable in India since August 21. Who was entitled to ask Meta to block it, and was the page’s owner owed a copy of that request? The Punjab and Haryana High Court has answered both, and directed restoration within 24 hours of the Superintendent of Police receiving a certified copy of its order.
Chandigarh: A police intimation that led Meta Platforms to take a news company’s Facebook page offline in India has been quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court held that a takedown request of this kind must be sent by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, and that the affected user must be given a copy when it goes to the platform [Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya passed the order on October 5, 2026, in CWP No. 30190 of 2026.
Background to the block
The petitioner’s verified Facebook page has been inaccessible in India from August 21, 2026. Meta’s notice said it had acted on a government or law enforcement request under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to the petitioner, it was never sent a copy of the intimation and had no warning before the page went dark.
The State’s stand was that a director of the company is an accused in an FIR dated August 6, 2026 under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that the page was being used to intimidate the victim and witnesses. These are the State’s allegations; they are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the criminal case, and the accused is presumed innocent. The State added that the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, who wrote to Meta on August 21, 2026, was a delegatee of the State Government.
Rule 3(1)(d) and the question of rank
Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 gives an intermediary thirty-six hours from actual knowledge under Section 79(3)(b) of the Act to remove or disable access to unlawful information. Such knowledge may arise only from the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or from a reasoned intimation in writing. When the intimation is sent by the police administration, the officer must not be “below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, especially authorised by the Appropriate Government in this behalf.” A monthly review of every such intimation by an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned government is also required.
On this test the Superintendent of Police fell short, the Court found. The Rules allow no delegation to a lower-ranked officer, the intimation cited no delegation order, and nothing showed that a monthly review had taken place. The Court observed:
“it is evident that the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him in issuing the said intimation”
Meta was therefore under no duty to act on the August 21, 2026 intimation, which the Court described as “without jurisdiction, and was not required to be acted upon”.
Why the user must be told
The State urged that the petitioner should first approach the platform’s Grievance Officer under Rule 3(2). The Court did not accept this. It said any procedure established by law has to be fair and reasonable, and relied on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023). Although Rule 3(2) does not expressly speak of notice to the user, the Court read that obligation into it:
“it is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to be read into the Rule.”
“a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary.”
As the petitioner had never been handed the intimation, going to the grievance mechanism “will be a futile exercise”, the Court said.
What the Court ordered
The intimation dated August 21, 2026 was quashed, and notice to Meta was dispensed with. The Superintendent of Police has to instruct Meta to bring the page back to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. The State still has a route open: should the Government conclude that the page carries prohibited information used for illegal activity, it may send a fresh intimation under Rule 3(1)(d), provided a copy reaches the petitioner immediately after it is sent.
The order places two safeguards of the IT Rules next to each other. The rank condition in Rule 3(1)(d) operates as a genuine limit on who can set a takedown going, and delegation cannot stand in for it. The notice duty means an account holder can learn why a page was blocked and contest it, instead of being pointed to a grievance route that helps only those who already know what to challenge. Whether other benches read Rule 3(2) in the same way remains to be seen.
Case Title: Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others [CWP No. 30190 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: For the petitioner, Advocates Namit Khurana and Gagan Budhiraja. For the Union of India, Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, with Ms. Amrita Singh, Central Government Counsel. For the State of Haryana, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General.