The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that authorities issuing takedown orders to social media intermediaries must also furnish a copy of such intimation to the affected user, holding that this requirement is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and must be read into the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The observation was made by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya while disposing of a petition filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited challenging the blocking of its Facebook page on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. The Court set aside the takedown order after finding multiple procedural and substantive violations by the State.
The Court noted that Rule 3(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 does not explicitly require authorities to notify the user whose content or page is subject to a takedown request. However, it emphasized that such notification is a necessary corollary of natural justice and must be read into the rule to ensure constitutional validity. ‘Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. This will make the procedure of sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 compliant of the primary tenets of natural justice and constitutionally valid,’ the Court stated.
The petitioner had contended that it received no prior notice before its Facebook page was blocked. In response, the Haryana Police stated that one of the directors of the petitioner company was an accused in an extortion case and was using the page to intimidate the victim, thereby justifying the intimation sent to Facebook to disable the page.
The Court further examined the authority issuing the takedown intimation and held that the officer authorised to issue such intimation under the IT Rules cannot be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP). Since the intimation in this case was issued by the Superintendent of Police, the Court found it to be in violation of the rules. It rejected the State government’s argument that the SP had been delegated the power to issue such intimation, noting that the State failed to point to any provision in the rules or statutes permitting such delegation.
‘Thus, it is evident that the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him in issuing the said intimation in flagrant violation of statutory provisions; this is sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power,’ the Court ruled.
Additionally, the Court considered the State’s failure to provide a copy of the intimation dated August 21 to the petitioner. It declined to accept the State’s argument that the petitioner should seek redress through the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism, stating that in such a situation, approaching that mechanism would be a futile exercise and would seriously impair the petitioner’s right to defend itself.
Consequently, the Court ordered the restoration of the petitioner’s Facebook page. It further directed that in case the authorities find any illegality on the petitioner’s Facebook page necessitating a fresh intimation to the intermediary, a copy of such intimation shall be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it has been sent to the intermediary.
The petition was represented by advocates Namit Khurana and Gagan Budhiraja. The Union government was represented by Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain and Central Government Counsel Amrita Singh, while the Haryana government was represented by Additional Advocate General Bhupender Singh.