Delhi High Court seeks reply from Centre, Meta as Molitics challenges Facebook page ban

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the Central government and Meta platform's response to a plea filed by digital news platform Molitics against the blocking of its Facebook page in India. .Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that he will hear the matter on April 23. During the hearing, the Court said that it needs the government and Meta's response on affidavit since in each matter "the stand of the respondents seems to be a little modified, varied and a little improved". "We want the clear mechanism to be clearly understood by all people," Justice Kaurav said. Advocate Apar Gupta appeared for Molitics and said that the Facebook page needs to be restored immediately since the petitioner is not an internet troll but a news organisation with over 40 employees."Forty-two journalists are there. I am pressing for immediate restoration," Gupta said. Meta's counsel told the Court that it needs time to respond to the plea since he does not know yet which government agency asked for the blocking of Molitics' Facebook page.Ultimately, the Bench told the respondents to justify under which provision the Facebook page was blocked. .It is Molitics' case that the blanket ban on its Facebook page across India followed "an undisclosed notice from Government of India or law enforcement under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000". The platform said in its petition that it was not given any notice, reasons or opportunity of hearing and that the restriction on its page went beyond the statutory mandate prescribed under Section 79 (3)(b) read with Rule 3 (1) (d) of the IT Rules, 2021. Molitics argued that the law only permits removal or disabling of specific content, not a blanket ban on an entire page. The petition contended that such sweeping action violates procedural safeguards laid down under the IT Rules, 2021, and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.on.The petition was filed through advocate Rishav Ranjan.