New Delhi [India], October 29 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has held that the mere provision of a social media platform for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, constitute a governmental function or a public duty, observing that Meta Platforms India cannot be subjected to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because its platform plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion.
Justice Amit Mahajan made observations while dealing with a petition filed by Sarthak Bhagat, who challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts without prior notice or an opportunity to respond.
The court observed that although Instagram plays a significant role in public discourse, its primary function is to provide a platform for expression, with public discourse being a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty.
“Respondent No. 3 is neither obligated to provide such a platform in discharge of a public duty nor legally compelled to offer its services, which are voluntary and user-driven,” the court said in its October 27 order.
The court further observed that Meta’s operations remain private in nature and that no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to the company.
It held that Meta Platforms India does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty that would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court observed that the petitioner’s legal recourse against the private entity appeared more appropriate through a civil suit, in which he could seek damages, if any.
Bhagat had approached the High Court alleging that his Instagram accounts were disabled without any prior notice or opportunity to respond. The notification communicated to him stated that the account had been disabled for allegedly violating Instagram’s Community Standards and that its information would be permanently deleted. It also stated that he could not request another review of the decision.
The petitioner contended that he had sought a review through Instagram’s in-app mechanism, but his accounts were not restored and no specific reasons for their disabling were provided.
He also informed the court that he had filed an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee on September 11, 2026, under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. According to him, the appeal remained pending despite the expiry of the 30-day period contemplated under the rules.
The court also declined to grant relief against the Union of India in the absence of a clear demonstration that the government had neglected a statutory duty.
It observed that a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary judicial remedy, can be issued to compel a public authority to perform a duty it is legally obligated to discharge but has failed to perform.
The court said the petition did not establish, on the basis of the contentions raised, any concrete neglect or failure by the government to discharge a statutory obligation. It held that the necessary foundation for issuing a writ of mandamus was therefore lacking.
However, on the petitioner’s grievance regarding the delay in deciding his appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee, the court directed the committee to decide the appeal expeditiously. The High Court disposed of the petition along with the pending applications in these terms. (ANI)
Mere provision of social media platform does not constitute public duty: Delhi High Court on plea against Instagram account suspension
