The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that authorities ordering takedown of a social media page must also inform the user while notifying the intermediary [Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v Union of India and Others]
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the Haryana Police directing 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 lay down the requirement to notify the user whose content or page is ordered to be taken down by the authorities.
However, it observed that this requirement is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to 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 judgement was passed on a petition moved by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited against the blocking of its Facebook page in India on the directions of Superintendent of Police of Yamuna Nagar.
The petitioner told the Court no notice was given before blocking the Facebook page. In response, the police said one of the directors of the petitioner company is an accused in an extortion case and was using the Facebook page to intimidate the victim. Therefore, an intimation was issued to Facebook to disable the Facebook page.
In the judgment passed on October 5, the Court said the officer authorised to issue such 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 to be in violation of the rules.
It rejected the State government’s contention that the SP had been delegated the power to issue the intimation to the intermediary. The Court said that the State failed to point out the 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,” it ruled.
Considering that the State had not provided a copy of the intimation dated August 21 to the petitioner, the Court declined to accept the State’s argument that the petitioner should be relegated to the grievance redressal mechanism of the intermediary.
“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.
Thus, the Court ordered restoration of the petitioner’s Facebook page. It also said that in case the authorities find that any illegality on the petitioner’s Facebook page, regarding which an intimation is required to be sent to the intermediary, a copy of such intimation shall be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it has been 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.
Additional Advocate General Bhupender Singh represented the Haryana government.
[Read Judgment]