Takedown Orders Must Be Shared With Social Media Users, Says Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that authorities who order a social media page to be taken down must also inform the user whose page is affected, not just the platform hosting it. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya made the observation while setting aside a Haryana Police order directing the takedown of the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited.
The Court noted that Rule 3(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 does not explicitly require that the user be notified when authorities order their content or page removed. Still, it held that this requirement flows from the principles of natural justice — the basic rule that a person should be heard before being affected — and must be read into the rule. "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 said.
The ruling came on a petition by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited, challenging the blocking of its Facebook page in India on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner told the Court that no notice was given before the page was blocked. The police responded that one of the company's directors is an accused in an extortion case and was using the Facebook page to intimidate the victim, which is why an intimation was sent to Facebook to disable the page.
In its judgment passed on October 5, the Court held that the officer authorised to issue such an intimation cannot be below the rank of a Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP). Since the intimation in this case was issued by the Superintendent of Police, the Court found it in violation of the rules. It rejected the State government's contention that the SP had been delegated the power to send the intimation to the intermediary, noting that the State failed to point to any provision allowing 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.
Since the State had not provided the petitioner a copy of the intimation dated August 21, the Court declined to accept its argument that the petitioner should be sent to the intermediary's grievance redressal mechanism instead. "In such a situation, approaching the grievance redressal mechanism by it will be a futile exercise and seriously impair its right to defend," the Court said.
The Court then ordered the restoration of the petitioner's Facebook page. It added that if authorities later find any illegality on the page requiring an intimation to the intermediary, a copy of that intimation must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.
Advocates Namit Khurana and Gagan Budhiraja represented the petitioner. Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain with Central Government Counsel Amrita Singh represented the Union government, while Additional Advocate General Bhupender Singh represented the Haryana government.
Source: Barandbench