Sarthak Bhagat vs Union Of India Ors & Ors.

$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 27 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010510992026
+ W.P.(C) 15685/2026 & CM APPL. 73465/2026
SARTHAK BHAGAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yash Vardhan Kaushik,
Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Bansal, SPC with
Ms. Bhawna, GP, Advs. for R1.
Also Mr. Deepank Yadav for
UOI.
Ms. Amee Rana, Mr. Yash
Karunakaran & Ms. Nivedita
Sudheer, Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved that his instagram accounts have been
disabled by Respondent No.3 without giving any prior notice or
opportunity to respond. The only reason communicated to the petitioner
reads as follows:
“We’ve disabled your account. You no longer have access to
sarthakbhagatttt. Why this happened — Your account, or activity on
it, doesn’t follow our Community Standards. What this means — No
one can see or find your account and you can’t use it. All your
information will be permanently deleted. You cannot request
another review of this decision.”
2. The petitioner further contends that he sought a review of the
same through the in-app mechanism, however, the accounts were not
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15685/2026 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

restored, nor were any specific reasons for their disablement provided.
3. It is also contended that the petitioner filed Appeal No.
158340/2026 before Respondent No. 2, the Grievance Appellate
Committee, on 11.09.2026 under Rule 3A of the Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite the expiry
of the thirty-day period contemplated under Rule 3A(4) of the said
Rules, the appeal remains pending without any hearing or
communication from Respondent No. 2.
4. At the very outset it is pertinent to note that the petitioner, by way
of the present petition, has sought certain reliefs against Respondent
No.3, Meta Platforms India, which is a private entity. The petitioner has
failed to persuade this Court as to how a writ petition is maintainable
against Respondent No.3.
5. It is well settled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable against any person or entity, including
private bodies, if they perform functions that can be considered ‘ public
functions ’.
6. Thus, for a writ to be maintainable against a private entity under
Article 226 of the Constitution, it must be demonstrated that the action
or conduct of the entity must be in the performance of a public duty or
function; the nature of the activity should involve a public interest or be
linked to a state obligation; and the function performed by the entity
should be integral to state functions or be undertaken by virtue of some
power vested by law. The threshold for a private entity to be amenable
to writ jurisdiction is that it must undertake functions that are
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15685/2026 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue of
power vested by law.
7. While the platform provided by Respondent No. 3 plays a
significant role in disseminating information and shaping public
opinion, its primary function is to provide a platform for expression,
with public discourse being a consequence of its operations rather than
a public duty. Its operations remain private in nature, and no
governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to it.
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 mere provision of a platform
for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, constitute
a governmental function or a function integral to the discharge of State
responsibilities. (Ref. Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. : 2024
SCC OnLine Del 5880 )
8. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to perform a
public function or discharge a public duty. Thus, Respondent No.3 is
not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s legal recourse
appears more appropriate for a civil suit, where the petitioner could
claim damages, if any.
9. As against Respondent No.1, the relief sought in the present
petition is as follows:
“issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent
No. 1 to ensure compliance by Respondent No. 3 with the applicable
obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT
Rules, 2021, including Rule 4(8) thereof, and to take such action as
may be warranted in accordance with law”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15685/2026 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

10. The essence of the relief is to compel regulatory oversight by the
government to regulate the activities of Respondent No.3 and ensure its
compliance to its obligations under the Information Technology Act,
2000. However, the issuance of a writ of mandamus requires a clear
demonstration that there has been a neglect of statutory duty by
Respondent No. 1. Mandamus is an extraordinary judicial remedy,
utilized specifically to compel a public official or agency to perform a
duty that they are legally obligated to perform and have failed to do.
The petition must provide concrete evidence of this neglect, which,
based on the contentions in the present petition, is not apparent. Without
this crucial demonstration of neglect or failure to act as mandated by
law, the foundation necessary to support the issuance of a mandamus is
lacking.
11. So far as the prayer of the petitioner with regard to timely
disposal of its appeal before Respondent No.2 is concerned, the
Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner
expeditiously.
12. The present petition along with pending applications is disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15685/2026 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54