The Kerala High Court on Monday admitted a writ petition challenging the blocking of the Facebook page belonging to NoCap, an independent Malayalam digital news platform, and directed the Central and State governments to file their responses. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. issued notice to the Union of India, the State of Kerala, and Meta Platforms, posting the matter for further hearing on November 5.
The petition was filed by Hyder Ali K., Chief Editor of NoCap, through advocates Prasanth Sugathan, Varsha Bhaskar, and Malavika K. The platform, established in November 2023, operates as a digital news organisation covering global, national, and local issues. According to the plea, the organisation relies on social media monetisation programmes for its revenue and operational expenses.
The controversy arose on September 28 when the petitioner received an in-app notification from Facebook stating that NoCap's content in India had been restricted pursuant to a notice from the Government of India or Law Enforcement under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petition contends that the blocking order was neither published nor disclosed to the petitioner or his team. It further asserts that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to be heard before the restriction was imposed.
What Are The Procedural Safeguards Under Section 79(3)(b) Of The IT Act For Blocking Digital Content?
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, requires that blocking orders be communicated to the affected user. The petitioner argues that the failure to disclose the order or provide a pre-decisional hearing violates Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
The plea alleges that the action was executed through an arbitrary process, infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioner and his team. It emphasises that the absence of publication and disclosure of the impugned order, coupled with the denial of a hearing, renders the blocking order procedurally defective and constitutionally impermissible.
The petition seeks a direction to set aside the blocking order and restore the Facebook page. As a general relief, the petitioner prays for a declaration that orders issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules must be communicated to the user whose content is removed or disabled. The interim reliefs sought include a direction to produce the blocking order, stay its operation, and reinstate the page.
Provision | Requirement | Petitioner's Grievance |
|---|---|---|
Section 79(3)(b), IT Act, 2000 | Intermediary must disable access on government/agency notice | Order not published or disclosed to user |
Rule 3(1)(d), IT Rules, 2021 | Orders to be communicated to affected user | No communication received by petitioner |
Natural Justice / Article 14 | Right to be heard before adverse action | No pre-blocking hearing afforded |
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. admitted the petition and granted time to the counsel representing the Central and State governments to obtain instructions. Notice was also issued to Meta Platforms by speed post. The court will reconvene on November 5 to consider the matter further, including the interim prayers for production of the order, stay of its operation, and reinstatement of the page.