After Meta Disabled His Instagram Accounts, Delhi HC Rejects Writ Against Platform, Directs Grievance Panel To Decide His Appeal expeditiously

In brief

The question

1. Whether Meta Platforms India’s disabling of the petitioner’s accounts was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as an exercise of a public function or duty

The court held

The Court held that Meta Platforms India was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on the facts presented and that the basis for mandamus against the Union of India had not been established.

It also directed

It directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner’s appeal expeditiously and disposed of the petition and pending applications.

01Facts

The petitioner’s Instagram accounts were disabled by Respondent No. 3, Meta Platforms India, without prior notice or a specific explanation beyond a general reference to breach of Community Standards. The petitioner’s in-app review did not result in restoration or further reasons.

p. 1 · p. 2 · ¶ 1–2

He then filed an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee (Respondent No. 2) under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. He alleged that the appeal remained undecided beyond the prescribed thirty-day period.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The petition sought relief against Meta and a direction requiring the Union of India to ensure Meta’s compliance with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the 2021 Rules.

p. 3 · ¶ 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether Meta Platforms India’s disabling of the petitioner’s accounts was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as an exercise of a public function or duty

p. 2 · ¶ 4–6

ii.2. Whether the petitioner established neglect of a statutory duty by the Union of India sufficient to warrant a writ of mandamus

p. 4 · ¶ 10

iii.3. Whether the Grievance Appellate Committee should be directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal expeditiously

p. 4 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Under Article 226, a private entity may be subject to writ jurisdiction where the impugned action involves a public duty or function, is connected to a state obligation, or is integral to governmental functions or performed under a power conferred by law.

p. 2 · ¶ 5–6

The Court relied on Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880, in holding that providing a social-media platform, despite its significance for public discourse, is not by itself a public function.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

A writ of mandamus requires a demonstrated failure or neglect by a public authority to perform a legally obligatory duty.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

Rule 3A(4) of the 2021 Rules was invoked in relation to the thirty-day period for disposal of the appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

04Reasoning

The Court found that Meta’s platform principally facilitates private expression and interaction; public discourse is a consequence of its operations, not a public duty. Meta was not required by the State to provide the service and did not perform a traditional governmental function, so it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction in this case.

p. 3 · ¶ 7–8

As to the Union of India, the petitioner had not shown concrete neglect of a statutory duty that could support mandamus.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

However, the Court separately addressed the pending appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee and directed its expeditious disposal.

p. 4 · ¶ 11