The Kerala High Court has permitted Journalist N. Madhavan Kutty to operate his Facebook account subject to the removal of some objectionable content from his account. While passing directions to Meta’s Grievance Officer, the High Court held that the entire account itself cannot be blocked when only some content is objectionable.

The petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the blocking of his Meta/Facebook account.

The Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held, “However, going by the documents produced before this Court, it is seen that, only in respect of some of the contents, the entire account itself is blocked. Therefore, I am prima facie of the view that the respondents have exceeded their powers. Therefore, as an interim measure, the petitioner can be permitted to operate the account referred to above. While permitting the petitioner to operate the account, it is directed that the objectionable content shall be removed.”

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj represented the Appellant while Central Govt Counsel Amal Parthasaradhy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the blocking was made by Facebook on account of an instruction received from the Kerala Police. The Government Pleader had informed the Court that the instruction to block the account was issued in view of certain contents uploaded by the petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench made it clear that if there is any objectionable content that affects the security of the State or is against the public interest, nothing would preclude the respondent from issuing an instruction to block such content.

Considering that the entire account was blocked only in respect of some of the contents, the Bench permitted the petitioner to operate the account after removing the objectionable content.

“For this purpose, the competent officer under the 6th respondent shall furnish to the 9th respondent, the particulars of the objectionable post(s), together with the corresponding URL(s), so as to enable the 9th respondent to identify and remove the same, while permitting the continued operation of the petitioner's account”, it ordered.

Dealing with the aspect of objectionable online contents, the Bench stated that if the ninth respondent (Grievance Officer, Meta Platforms) had already furnished the necessary information in this regard, the same would not be allowed to be displayed online for the time being. “It is further directed that, if any competent officer under the 6th respondent identifies and communicates to the 9th respondent any objectionable content, together with the relevant particulars, including the URL thereof, the 9 th respondent shall, for the time being, remove or disable access to such content, subject to further orders, to be passed by this court, without affecting the operation of the petitioner's account”, it ordered.

Cause Title: N. Madhavan Kutty v. Union Of India (Case No.: WP(C) NO. 21126 Of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Chinnu Maria Antony, Tarun Philip

Respondent: Central Govt Counsel Amal Parthasaradhy

Click here to read/download Order



Kerala High CourtJustice Ziyad Rahman A.A.

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.