Police Cannot Block Facebook Page Through SP: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams ‘Sheer Highhandedness’, Orders Restoration; Holds DIG-Rank Authorisation and Disclosure of Blocking Notice Mandatory
Case Name: Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others
Date of Judgment: 05 October 2026
Citation: CWP-30190-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Superintendent of Police lacks jurisdiction to issue an intimation directing a social media intermediary to disable access to online content under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Such intimation, when issued by the police administration, must emanate from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), specifically authorised by the appropriate Government. The prescribed rank requirement cannot be circumvented through delegation to a subordinate officer.
The Court further held that a copy of the blocking intimation must be furnished to the affected user when sent to the intermediary, even though the Rules do not expressly prescribe such disclosure. This requirement flows from the principles of natural justice and is essential to enable meaningful exercise of the statutory grievance redressal mechanism.
Summary: The petitioner, Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, challenged the blocking of its verified Facebook page in India pursuant to an intimation dated 21.08.2026 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, to Meta Platforms Inc. The page had been blocked without furnishing the company a copy of the intimation or disclosing the grounds for such action.
The State justified the restriction on the ground that one of the company’s directors, an accused in a criminal case, was allegedly using the page to intimidate the victim and witnesses. It further contended that the Superintendent of Police was authorised to issue the intimation and that the petitioner could approach Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the Superintendent of Police had exercised powers expressly reserved for an officer not below the rank of DIGP. Describing the action as “sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power”, the Court found the intimation to be without jurisdiction. It also observed that no mandatory monthly review of the blocking intimation had been demonstrated.
Relying on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 366, the Court held that withholding the blocking notice and its supporting material deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to challenge the restriction. The availability of an intermediary’s grievance mechanism could not justify relegating the petitioner to that remedy without first disclosing the grounds of action.
Decision: The writ petition was disposed of after setting aside the blocking intimation dated 21.08.2026. The Superintendent of Police was directed to instruct Meta Platforms Inc., within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, to restore the petitioner’s Facebook page to its original status, with urgent compliance by Meta.
The Court clarified that the Government remained at liberty to initiate lawful action against prohibited content through a duly authorised officer, provided a copy of any fresh intimation was furnished to the petitioner immediately after being sent to the intermediary.