The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a petition filed by Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Member of Parliament Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi challenging the restriction imposed on his Facebook account. The petition concerns the complete restriction of access to Mehdi's Facebook page. Before the High Court, Mehdi's counsel submitted that the restriction had been imposed without providing him with any notice or information regarding the basis for the action. The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who directed the respondents to file their replies after considering the submissions made by the parties. The Court has listed the matter for further consideration.
The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that Mehdi is a sitting Member of Parliament and that access to his Facebook page had been completely restricted pursuant to the impugned action. The grievance before the Court was that Mehdi had not been informed about the reasons for the restriction or provided with the material that allegedly formed the basis for taking down or restricting his account. The petition therefore challenges the manner in which the restriction was imposed and seeks judicial consideration of the action taken against his Facebook page.
During the proceedings, counsel appearing for Meta Platforms informed the Court that the Facebook page had been taken down pursuant to a notice issued by a law enforcement agency. Meta's counsel sought some time to place the relevant notice before the Court. The submission indicated that the restriction was not an independent action taken by Meta without any external request, but had been carried out pursuant to a communication or notice received from a law enforcement agency. Meta sought an opportunity to produce the relevant material before the Court so that the basis of the restriction could be placed on record.
Mehdi's counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner had not been given any information regarding the order or notice that resulted in the restriction of his Facebook account. According to the submissions made before the High Court, Mehdi was unaware of the specific basis on which access to his page had been restricted. The petitioner therefore sought consideration of the procedure followed before his account was restricted and raised questions regarding the absence of communication to him concerning the action taken against the page.
A further submission made on behalf of Mehdi concerned the grievance redressal mechanism applicable to social media platforms under the Information Technology Rules. His counsel told the Court that Meta was required to follow the grievance redressal procedure prescribed under the applicable rules. According to the submission, the petitioner had already approached Meta's grievance redressal officer by making a representation regarding the restriction imposed on his Facebook page.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the grievance redressal officer was required to respond to the representation within 24 hours. However, according to the petitioner, no such response had been provided. The submission before the High Court was that despite the representation being made through the prescribed grievance mechanism, the petitioner had not received the response that he claimed was required under the Information Technology Rules. This was placed before the Court as part of the grievance concerning the procedure followed by Meta in restricting access to the Facebook account.
The petitioner's counsel also stated that no one had identified the allegedly offending material on Mehdi's Facebook page. According to the submission, the petitioner had not been informed which particular post, statement or other material on his page was considered objectionable and had resulted in the restriction. The absence of identification of the alleged offending material was therefore raised as another aspect of the petitioner's challenge to the restriction imposed on the account.
The proceedings before the High Court consequently involved submissions from both sides concerning the basis and procedure of the restriction. On one side, the petitioner's counsel maintained that Mehdi had not received notice or information about the action and that the grievance redressal mechanism had not been effectively followed. On the other side, Meta's counsel stated that the page had been taken down pursuant to a notice from a law enforcement agency and sought time to produce that notice before the Court.
After hearing the parties, the Delhi High Court issued notice in the petition and directed the respondents to file their replies. The Court did not at this stage make a final determination regarding the legality of the restriction or the merits of the petitioner's allegations. The order instead requires the respondents to place their responses before the Court, after which the issues raised by Mehdi can be considered further in the proceedings.
The case has been registered as Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi v. Union of India & Ors. under W.P.(C)-12653/2026. The petition was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The matter has been listed for further consideration on September 30. The respondents have been directed to file their replies in the meantime.
The dispute therefore centres on the restriction imposed on Mehdi's Facebook account, the law enforcement notice relied upon by Meta Platforms for taking down the page, and the petitioner's contention that he was not informed about the action or the material allegedly responsible for the restriction. The petitioner has also raised the issue of the grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology Rules, stating that he had approached Meta's grievance redressal officer but had not received the response that, according to him, was required within the prescribed period.
At the present stage, the High Court has only issued notice and called for replies from the respondents. The Court has not recorded a finding on whether the restriction was lawful, whether the law enforcement notice was valid, whether Meta complied with the applicable grievance redressal requirements, or whether the petitioner's Facebook page contained any offending material. Those questions remain to be considered after the respondents place their replies and the relevant material before the Court.
The matter will therefore proceed on the basis of the pleadings and documents that the respondents are required to file. Meta's submission that the account was restricted pursuant to a law enforcement agency's notice is expected to be supported by production of that notice before the Court. The petitioner's allegations concerning lack of notice, absence of information regarding the alleged offending material and the grievance redressal process will also remain before the Court for consideration.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.