The regulation of online content increasingly requires governments, law-enforcement agencies and intermediaries to balance competing interests, including public order, public safety and the protection of constitutional freedoms. As digital platforms have become the primary forums for information-sharing and public discourse, the legitimacy of content-removal measures depends not only on the existence of statutory powers but also on the fairness, transparency and accountability of the procedures through which those powers are exercised. Restrictions imposed without adequate notice, reasons or an opportunity to seek redressal to the author of the content risks undermining the values that are required under the Indian constitutional framework.
Against this backdrop, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others represents an important development in India's evolving digital-governance jurisprudence. The judgment emphasises the procedural safeguards which require any exercise of the power to be done by the designated authority as well as accompanied by following principles of natural justice that allows the affected users to understand the basis of the action enabling them to effectively challenge it. By directing that a copy of the notice or intimation sent to an intermediary must also be furnished to the affected user, the Court has introduced a significant safeguard into India's online content-regulation framework.
The dispute arose after the Facebook account of Haryana 24 News Network was restricted in India pursuant to an intimation issued by the Haryana Police to Meta under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act"). The petitioner was not provided a copy of the communication sent to Meta and became aware of the restriction only through a platform notification indicating that action had been taken pursuant to a government or law-enforcement request.
The State justified the action by alleging that the petitioner's director had used the Facebook account to intimidate witnesses in a pending criminal case. Based on these allegations, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, directed Meta to disable access to the page.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the action on various grounds. Most importantly, it held that the impugned intimation had been issued by an officer below the rank prescribed under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 ("IT Rules"). Following the October 2025 amendments to the IT Rules, such notices must be issued by an authorised officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). The Court further noted non-compliance with the statutory review requirements under the Rules.
The Court also rejected the State's contention that the petitioner ought to have approached the intermediary's grievance officer. It observed that such a remedy would be largely ineffective if the affected user was denied access to the very communication that triggered the restriction. Although the IT Act and the IT Rules, as amended, do not expressly require that the user be furnished with a copy of the notice, the Court held that such an obligation flows from principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it directed that the affected user should be provided a copy of the notice or intimation simultaneously with its transmission to the intermediary.
The significance of the judgment lies more in terms of the procedural principles it seeks to reinforce.
First, the Court reaffirmed that statutory safeguards cannot be treated as mere formalities. Where the Rules designate specific officers as competent authorities to issue takedown notices, those requirements must be strictly followed. Any exercise of power affecting online expression must remain within the bounds prescribed by law.
Secondly, and more significantly, the judgment addresses a recurring concern in digital-content regulation: the absence of transparency for affected users. A user whose content is removed or whose account is restricted does not receive any information regarding the legal basis of the action, the authority issuing the direction or the content alleged to be unlawful. Without such information, the ability to challenge the action becomes largely illusory.
The Court's insistence that users be furnished with the relevant notice therefore strengthens procedural fairness without undermining the State's ability to act against unlawful content. It recognizes that rights of review and challenge can only be meaningful where the affected person has access to the reasons underlying the restriction.
Section 79 primarily forms part of the intermediary liability framework and governs the circumstances in which intermediaries may lose safe-harbour protection. Recently, a few petitions have been filed before the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, raising the procedural concerns for content-removal under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, including ‘Sahyog Portal’, a centralized platform launched by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) in October 2024. The Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the powers under the IT Rules for take down of online content.
Unlike Section 69A of the IT Act, which is supported by a dedicated statutory framework under the Blocking Rules, the contours of the Section 79(3)(b) regime are being debated before the courts. A person may discover that content has been removed or that an account has been restricted without receiving meaningful information regarding the underlying governmental request. In practical terms, this can significantly impair the ability to seek judicial review or avail other remedies.
The ongoing challenges concerning government takedown mechanisms and the use of Section 79(3)(b), intermediary obligations, underscore the broader concern that restrictions on online expression must be accompanied by clear procedural protections. The Haryana 24 decision contributes to this debate by recognizing that procedural safeguards are not technical requirements but an essential protection against arbitrary restrictions on online expression.
The Haryana 24 decision is ultimately a judgment about processes, as it reinforces the principle that such authority must be exercised through procedures that are transparent, accountable and consistent with natural justice.
The requirement that an affected user receive a copy of the notice or intimation sent to an intermediary is a significant development in India's content-governance framework. It addresses a longstanding procedural safeguard and enables users to meaningfully understand and challenge restrictions imposed on their online presence.
The decision is particularly relevant given the ongoing challenges before various High Courts and the Supreme Court concerning the use of Section 79(3)(b) and related content-removal mechanisms. Although the precise legal questions vary across these proceedings, a common concern underlies them, ensuring that governmental powers affecting online speech are exercised through procedures that are fair, transparent and reviewable.
Going forward, there is a strong case for establishing a clearer statutory framework governing notices issued under Section 79(3)(b). Such a framework must be constitutionally sound and strike an appropriate balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights. To this end, there should be a clear takedown mechanism under the IT Act, mandating disclosure of the legal basis of the action, identification of the specific content sought to be restricted, details of the designated officers responsible for the underlying offence being made available on the government’s website. There should also be clarity in terms of the extent to which adjudication of the content must be handled through judicial processes. Additionally, authorities should follow the principles of proportionality and use the least restrictive means necessary to remove unlawful content, rather than imposing broad restrictions that affect lawful speech. Further, identified publishers and creators should ordinarily receive a written, reasoned notice and an opportunity to be heard and affected users should have a practical and time-bound mechanism to seek reconsideration and judicial review. An exception may be made for emergencies involving national security or imminent threats, but such actions should then be subjected to prompt post-decisional review. In addition to above, there should be an independent review committee for periodic examination of takedown directions, particularly where constitutionally protected speech is implicated. Finally, the government agencies and intermediaries should also publish periodic transparency reports containing aggregate information on takedown requests. These safeguards would not impede legitimate enforcement efforts; rather, they would enhance the legitimacy and accountability of governmental action.
Ultimately, the protection of freedom of speech and expression depends on ensuring that whenever those powers are exercised, they are exercised in accordance with due process and principles of natural justice. By placing procedural fairness at the centre of online content regulation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken an important step towards ensuring that India's digital-governance framework remains consistent with constitutional values and the rule of law.
About the authors: Deepak Singh is Partner and Head of Digital Regulations, Emerging Technology, Privacy & Cybersecurity at Chandhiok & Mahajan.
Ankit Tripathi is a Senior Associate in the same practice.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.