Authorities must give social media users a copy of any notice they send to a platform to block their content at the same time as they send it to the platform, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. “Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary,” Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, according to LiveLaw.
The court set aside a Haryana Police notice under which Meta blocked the Facebook page of news outlet Haryana 24 News Network in India. It directed the police to instruct Meta to restore the page within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order, dated October 5. If the government later finds unlawful content on the page, it must share any new notice sent to Meta with the outlet immediately after sending it.
Why did the court set aside the notice? The Superintendent of Police (SP), Yamuna Nagar, sent the notice to Meta under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The court found two problems with the notice:
- Wrong officer: The IT Rules require such notices to be issued by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) who has been specifically authorised by the government. “The Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him,” Justice Dahiya said, calling the action “sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power,” according to ThePrint.
- No copy to the user: The IT Rules do not expressly require authorities to share notices with users, but the court held that the principles of natural justice require them to do so. It rejected the state’s argument that the outlet should have used Meta’s grievance process instead. The court held that a user cannot challenge a block without knowing the contents of the notice and the material supporting it.
The Haryana government told the court that one of the company’s directors was an accused in a criminal case and had allegedly used the page to post videos and send messages intimidating the victim and witnesses.
Which officers can send these notices? Before 2025, states authorised officers of different ranks to issue notices under Section 79(3)(b), Rakesh Maheshwari, former senior director of MeitY’s Cyber Laws Division, said at a MediaNama event in April. Delhi authorised 23 officers of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and above, while Karnataka authorised officers as junior as Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). Some states authorised officers at the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
“After 2025, I believe those notifications also need to be reviewed,” Maheshwari said. “That has not been done.”
He said the government should publish a consolidated list of these notifications.
“There should be a consolidated list of such notifications which should be made available so that at least people know as to whether you are authorised or not, by which notification, and whether it is within the law or not.”
What did the outlet know about the block? Users in India could not access the page for 45 days from August 21, ThePrint reported. The outlet received no notice from the police. It received only a message from Meta saying that access had been restricted “pursuant to a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement” under Section 79(3)(b).
How do Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) differ? The government can block online content in India through two routes under the IT Act:
- Section 69A: Only the central government can issue blocking orders under this provision, through MeitY’s designated officer. The grounds include national security, public order and friendly relations with foreign states. A committee of five joint secretaries from relevant ministries reviews each request, and the MeitY Secretary gives final approval, Maheshwari said. The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, provide for a hearing for the person or platform concerned where the government can identify them.
- Section 79(3)(b): Platforms can lose their legal protection from liability for user content if they fail to “expeditiously remove or disable access” to content after “the appropriate Government or its agency” notifies them that someone is using it to commit an unlawful act. The IT Rules allow central and state agencies, including the police, to send such notices through authorised officers. They do not provide for a hearing for users before platforms block their content. Since February 2026, platforms have been required to act on these notices within three hours, down from 36 hours.
“Just simply sharing a URL saying that it is unlawful is not good enough,” Maheshwari said of notices issued under Section 79(3)(b).
The government’s Sahyog portal, through which agencies send takedown notices to platforms, operates under Section 79(3)(b). The ruling applies to notices issued through this route and binds authorities in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
Why it matters: The ruling gives users whose content platforms block on police notices a legal basis to demand a copy of the notice. Without one, they cannot tell which agency acted or on what grounds, which is the position many journalists and outlets were in after the October protests.
Meta restricted protest coverage by several journalists and outlets in October, sending them the same type of message that Haryana 24 News Network received. The messages did not identify the agency, order or legal provision involved, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said. Delhi Police issued more than 200 takedown orders through the Sahyog portal ahead of the October 10 protest, as we reported.
Also read:
- Non Compliance with Section 79(3)(b) content takedowns more serious than Section 69A, says X
- How India’s content takedown framework was built and where It has gone wrong #NAMA
The post Social media users must get copies of police notices to block their content, rules Punjab and Haryana HC appeared first on MEDIANAMA.