Mayank Jain vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: November 02 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010527412026
+ W.P.(C) 16207/2026
MAYANK JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anjali, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with
Mr. Atishay Jain, Advs. for R1
Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, Mr.
Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali &
Mr. Saksham Chaturvedi, Advs.
for R-2, 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved that Respondent No. 2 restricted his
LinkedIn account, without any prior warning, without disclosing the
specific provision of the User Agreement or Professional Community
Policies allegedly violated, and without identifying the particular
activity or conduct forming the basis of such restriction.
2. It is contended that despite repeated representations, appeals
and requests for a manual review, Respondent No. 2 continues to issue
repetitive and template-based responses citing the "number and/or
severity" of unspecified violations, without furnishing any supporting
material or passing a reasoned order. The petitioner further contends
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
W.P.(C) 16207/2026 Page 1 of 4

that although the restriction was initially represented as temporary, the
same has continued indefinitely.
3. 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.2, Linkedin Technology Information Private Limited,
which is a private entity along with Respondent No.3, the resident
grievance officer of Respondent No.2.
4. Though the petitioner has arrayed the Union of India as
Respondent No.1, no specific prayers or directions have been sought
against it.
5. The petitioner has failed to persuade this Court as to how a writ
petition is maintainable against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
6. 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 ’.
7. 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 fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue
of power vested by law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
W.P.(C) 16207/2026 Page 2 of 4

8. While the platform provided by Respondent No. 2 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. 2 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 )
9. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 cannot be said to perform a
public function or discharge a public duty. Consequently, Respondent
No.3, being the resident grievance officer of Respondent No.2 also
cannot be said to perform a public function or discharge a public duty.
10. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are
not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The petitioner’s legal recourse appears more appropriate for
a civil suit, where the petitioner could claim damages, if any.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has already
preferred an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee under
Section 3A(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in regard to
the present grievance.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
W.P.(C) 16207/2026 Page 3 of 4

12. In view of the above, the present petition is not maintainable
and is accordingly dismissed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
W.P.(C) 16207/2026 Page 4 of 4