Kerala High Court: Seeks Basis for NoCap Facebook Page Blocking

• The Kerala High Court has sought clarification from the Union and State governments regarding an alleged order to block the Facebook page of digital news platform NoCap.
• Justice Ziyad Rahman AA issued the directive in response to a petition filed by NoCap's Chief Editor, Hyder Ali K.
• NoCap alleges its Facebook page was restricted on September 28 without disclosure of reasons or a copy of the blocking order.
• Facebook's notification to NoCap cited a government notice under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but lacked specific details.
• The court also requested a response from Meta Platforms and scheduled the next hearing for November 5.

The ongoing proceedings before the Kerala High Court underscore significant questions surrounding due process and transparency in government-mandated content blocking under India's Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Kerala High Court has initiated proceedings to ascertain the basis for the alleged blocking of a digital news platform's Facebook page in India. On Monday, Justice Ziyad Rahman AA directed both the Union government and the State government to provide clarification on whether any official order was issued to Meta Platforms, the operator of Facebook, instructing it to restrict access to the 'NoCap' news portal. This judicial inquiry stems from a petition filed by Hyder Ali K, the Chief Editor of NoCap, who is challenging the restrictions placed on his organization's social media presence.

The court's directive specifically mandates the Central Government Counsel (CGC) and the Government Pleader (GP) for the State to obtain instructions regarding any such orders issued to Meta. The case, formally titled Hyder Ali K v Union of India & ors, highlights a critical concern regarding the transparency of content moderation actions on major social media platforms. Meta Platforms has also been named as a respondent, with the court seeking a direct response from the company itself. The matter is scheduled for further deliberation on November 5.

NoCap, an independent Malayalam digital news organization established in November 2023, found its Facebook page restricted in India on September 28 of the current year. According to the petition filed by its Chief Editor, Hyder Ali K, the news portal received a notification from Facebook indicating this content restriction. However, the core of NoCap's grievance lies in the lack of detailed information accompanying this notification.

The communication from Facebook merely referenced a notice from the government, citing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as the legal basis for the restriction. Crucially, the notification failed to identify the specific legal authority that issued this notice. Furthermore, it did not specify which particular content was deemed objectionable, nor did it provide any explicit reasons for the decision to block the page. This absence of disclosure forms the central tenet of the petitioner's challenge against the imposed restrictions.

The ongoing proceedings before the Kerala High Court underscore significant questions surrounding due process and transparency in government-mandated content blocking under India's Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner's assertion that the blocking occurred without any disclosed reasons or a copy of the blocking order raises concerns about the accountability of such actions. Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, while providing a framework for intermediaries to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon government notification, implicitly requires a degree of clarity and justification for such directives.

The court's proactive step in demanding explicit instructions from both the central and state governments, as well as Meta, reflects the judiciary's intent to ensure that content restrictions are not imposed arbitrarily. The outcome of Hyder Ali K v Union of India & ors could establish important precedents regarding the obligations of government authorities to provide clear, reasoned blocking orders and the responsibilities of platforms like Facebook to disclose the specifics of such directives to affected parties. This case is pivotal for clarifying the procedural safeguards available to digital news platforms facing content restrictions in India.

Lawyers should monitor this case for precedents on due process and transparency requirements for government-mandated content blocking under the IT Act. This could inform advice to digital platforms on challenging opaque restriction orders and ensuring compliance with legal procedures for content moderation.

Source: Original reporting based on the provided source material.