Kerala HC Orders Restoration of Facebook Account Blocked on Kerala Police Instructions, Finds Wholesale Account Block Exceeds Authority

Justice Ziyad Rahman found that blocking an entire Facebook account over select objectionable posts prima facie exceeded statutory powers, and ordered interim restoration with targeted content removal.

The High Court of Kerala has directed the interim restoration of a Facebook account belonging to N. Madhavan Kutty, a 76-year-old resident of Edappally, Kochi, whose account at the URL www.facebook.com/madhavankutty.nandeilath/ had been blocked since November 2025 on instructions issued by the Kerala Police. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., sitting singly at Ernakulam, passed the order on 31 July 2026 after examining the documents produced by the Government Pleader on instruction. The court held, on a prima facie view, that blocking the entire account merely because some of its contents were found objectionable went beyond what the relevant statutory provisions permitted. The order balances the respondents' authority to address genuinely harmful content against the disproportionate effect of an account-wide block.

The Dispute Before the Court

Madhavan Kutty filed WP(C) No. 21126 of 2026 praying for an interim direction to restore his Meta/Facebook account, which had been blocked following an instruction from the Kerala Police to Meta. The petition named nine respondents: the Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and two of its officers, the Kerala Home Secretary, the Director General of Police, and three Meta India entities including the Grievance Officer of Meta Platforms, Inc.

When the matter came up on 31 July 2026, the Government Pleader, appearing for the State respondents, submitted upon instruction that the blocking instruction had been issued because of certain contents uploaded by the petitioner. Details of those contents were placed before the court. Meta India's counsel raised a separate concern: the account had been blocked since November 2025, and under Rule 3(g) of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules), 2021, intermediaries are required to retain records of online content for only six months. Meta's counsel submitted that this retention window had already elapsed and the data might no longer be available.

The petitioner's counsel responded that the block was operative only within India; the account and its data remained accessible from outside India. This position was not disputed by the Government Pleader.

The Legal Issue: Entire Account Versus Specific Content

The court acknowledged the respondents' authority to act against content that affects the security of the State or is against the public interest. Justice Ziyad Rahman accepted the proposition in principle: “if there is any objectionable content that affects the security of the State or against the public interest, nothing would preclude the respondent to issue instruction to block such content.”

The critical question, however, was one of proportionality and statutory scope. Going through the documents produced, the court found that only some of the contents were objectionable. Despite that, the entire account had been blocked. That distinction — between removing or disabling specific posts and disabling the whole account — became the pivot of the court's reasoning.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Ziyad Rahman concluded, on a prima facie view, that blocking the account in its entirety on account of select posts exceeded the respondents' statutory powers. The court's review of the relevant statutory provisions reinforced this: the power to block content does not, on the face of it, translate into a power to disable an entire account when only certain posts within it are objectionable.

On the data-availability concern raised by Meta, the court accepted the petitioner's factual position that the block was India-specific and the account data remained intact outside India. Since that position went undisputed by the State, the court treated the data-retention argument as not standing in the way of restoration.

The court's approach was to separate two distinct questions: whether objectionable content could be taken down, and whether the account as a whole could be disabled. Answering the first in favour of the respondents and the second against them, it fashioned a middle course — interim restoration of the account coupled with a mechanism for targeted removal of offending posts.

Directions Issued

Justice Ziyad Rahman directed that Madhavan Kutty be permitted to operate his Facebook account at the stated URL forthwith. The 9th respondent — the Grievance Officer of Meta Platforms, Inc. — was directed to take necessary steps to enable this immediately.

On the question of objectionable content, the court issued a two-limb direction. First, if the 9th respondent had already been furnished information about specific objectionable posts, those posts were not to be displayed online for the time being. Second, if any competent officer under the 6th respondent (the Director General of Police) identifies further objectionable content and communicates its particulars, including the corresponding URL, to the 9th respondent, then Meta shall remove or disable access to that specific content subject to further orders from the court — without affecting the continued operation of the account overall.

For the purpose of implementing the content-removal mechanism, the court directed that the competent officer under the 6th respondent furnish to the 9th respondent the particulars of each objectionable post together with the corresponding URL, so that Meta could identify and remove individual posts while leaving the account operational.

Order

The court ordered interim restoration of the Facebook account of N. Madhavan Kutty with the URL www.facebook.com/madhavankutty.nandeilath/, with the 9th respondent directed to enable operation of the account forthwith. Objectionable content already communicated to the 9th respondent shall not be displayed online; any further objectionable posts identified and communicated with URL particulars by the competent police officer shall be removed or disabled by the 9th respondent, subject to further orders, without disturbing the account's operation. The petition remains pending. The order was signed by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. on 31 July 2026.