Authority: Uttarakhand High Court, Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Order Date: 5 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Keshav Singh (also referred to as Keshav Thalwal) filed a writ petition (WPMS/3043/2026) against the Union of India and other respondents.
  • Nature of Dispute: The petitioner’s Facebook account/profile (name: "Keshav Singh", link: https://facebook.com/keshav.thalwal.1) and Instagram account (name: "Keshav Singh", username/id: "keshavthalwal0808") were blocked/restricted in India on 19‑08‑2026. He alleges the action was unlawful and seeks relief.
  • Reliefs Sought:

a) Certiorari to quash the impugned blocking/restriction action dated 19‑08‑2026.

b) Certiorari to quash the Government/Law Enforcement notice that led to the blocking.

c) Mandamus directing Respondent No. 6 (Meta Platforms, Inc.) to immediately restore and enable access to the petitioner’s Facebook and Instagram accounts within India.

d) Mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 and 2 to produce the original notice/order issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to the petitioner’s accounts.

e) Direction to Respondent No. 5 (Grievance Appellate Committee – GAC) to decide the petitioner’s appeal (Appeal No. 156668 of 2026, filed on 03‑09‑2026) expeditiously, in accordance with Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Union of India’s counsel asserted that no Union authority requested Meta to close the accounts and that the petitioner has an appeal remedy under Rule 3A(3) of the Intermediary Guidelines.
  • Uttarakhand Police also did not request any closure of the petitioner’s social‑media accounts.
  • Petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the appeal filed on 03‑09‑2026 should be decided promptly.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority (Grievance Appellate Committee) to decide the pending appeal within 45 days from the date of this order.
  • No direct order was issued to restore the accounts; the court limited its direction to ensuring a speedy adjudication of the appeal under the applicable IT Rules.

Topics: Social Media Regulation, IT Intermediary Guidelines, Court Proceedings