Delhi HC Dismisses LinkedIn User’s Writ Over Account Restriction, Says Platform Performs No Public Function

In brief

The question

Whether LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in relation to the restriction of the petitioner’s account

The court held

The Court held that Respondents 2 and 3 were not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

It also directed

It indicated that the petitioner’s more appropriate legal recourse appeared to be a civil suit.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged LinkedIn’s restriction of his account, alleging that it gave no prior warning or specific explanation of the provision or conduct relied on, and that his appeals and requests for manual review received only template responses. He also contended that a purportedly temporary restriction had continued indefinitely.

¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2

The petition sought relief against LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited and its resident grievance officer; although the Union of India was joined, no specific relief was sought against it.

¶ 3–4 · p. 2

The petitioner had also appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee under the provision identified in the judgment as Section 3A(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

¶ 11 · p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in relation to the restriction of the petitioner’s account

¶ 5–10 · pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the petition was maintainable in light of the petitioner’s alternative civil remedy and pending appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee

¶ 10–12 · pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Article 226 permits writs against private entities where the challenged action is connected to the performance of a public duty or function. The relevant inquiry is whether the function involves a public interest or state obligation and is governmental in nature, integral to state functions, or performed by virtue of power conferred by law.

¶ 6–7 · p. 2

In Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880, the Court had held that providing a social or communication platform, without more, is not a governmental function or public duty.

¶ 8 · p. 3

The judgment also noted the petitioner’s appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee under the provision it identified as Section 3A(3) of the 2021 Rules.

¶ 11 · p. 3

04Reasoning

The Court held that LinkedIn’s platform facilitates expression and public discourse, but that public discourse is a consequence of its private operations rather than a public duty. LinkedIn was not performing a traditional state function, acting under a governmental mandate, or legally required to provide its services. It therefore was not amenable to Article 226; its resident grievance officer was likewise not amenable because of that role.

¶ 8–10 · p. 3

The Court considered a civil suit, including a claim for damages, a more appropriate recourse and noted the petitioner’s pending appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee.

¶ 10–11 · p. 3