The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Yamunanagar police order that led to the blocking of a local news outlet’s Facebook page, ruling that the superintendent of police had acted without legal authority and failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya directed the Yamunanagar SP to instruct Meta Platforms Inc. to immediately restore the verified Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The page had been blocked in India since August 21, according to the court proceedings reported by the Times of India.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the news company. Its lawyers, Namit Khurana and Gagan Budhiraja, argued that the company had not been issued a notice and had not been given a copy of the communication sent to Meta. They said the action had kept the company unaware of the proceedings, caused business losses and affected its reputation.
The legal challenge centred on who can issue an order seeking the blocking of online content. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the 2021 Information Technology Rules permit blocking orders to be issued only by an authorised government officer of a rank not below deputy inspector general of police.
The state government defended the police action through additional advocate general Bhupender Singh. He told the court that one of the company’s directors was an accused in a case registered under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Yamunanagar on August 6. According to the state’s submission, the director had allegedly been posting videos and sending messages through the Facebook page with the intention of intimidating the victim and witnesses in that case.
The bench rejected the argument that the Yamunanagar SP had been delegated the necessary authority. It observed that no law permitted such delegation and held that the superintendent of police had assumed a power that was not vested in the office. Justice Dahiya described the action as a “flagrant violation of statutory provisions” and an “arbitrary exercise of power”, declaring the order to be without jurisdiction.
The court also noted that the applicable rules require the government to review blocking-related intimations every month to assess whether they remain necessary and proportionate. No such review had been carried out in this case, it said.
Another issue was procedural fairness. The court observed that the company had not been served a copy of the notice issued to Meta and had not been given an opportunity to defend itself through the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism. Since the notice was without jurisdiction, the bench held that Meta was not required to act on it.
The order does not prevent the state government from taking action if the Facebook page contains information, data or communication links prohibited under law. However, the court directed that any fresh intimation issued for that purpose must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is made. The ruling places the next step, if any, within the statutory procedure and disclosure requirements identified by the court.
