Grievance Appellate Committee under IT Rules constitutes an efficacious alternative remedy for disputes against social media intermediaries.

The petitioners, who are practicing advocates, approached the High Court challenging the banning of their WhatsApp accounts

WhatsApp LLC (Respondent No. 3) submitted that the bans had been lifted in all three cases pursuant to their policy guidelines

The petitioners, however, argued that their grievance was only partially mitigated because their historical data had not been restored and remained inaccessible, causing them professional hardship

The Court had previously issued notices to the respondents regarding these claims

1. Whether Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provides an efficacious alternative remedy for grievances involving account suspension and data access

2. Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to resolve the lingering issue of data restoration or direct the parties to the statutory grievance mechanism

Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules”), which establishes the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to resolve disputes between users and intermediaries

Rule 3A(3) allows any person aggrieved by a Grievance Officer’s decision to prefer an appeal within thirty days

The Division Bench precedent in Ravinder v. Union of India (LPA 35/2025), which held that the mechanism under Rule 3A constitutes an efficacious remedy for such grievances

The Court noted that while the primary ban on the accounts was lifted, the petitioners’ secondary grievance regarding the non-restoration of data remained

However, the Court determined that the efficacy of the remedy under Rule 3A of the IT Rules had already been upheld by a Division Bench of the same Court

The Court reasoned that technical grievances regarding data accessibility must be examined by the Appellate Committee in accordance with the extant rules and regulations rather than the writ court

The Court emphasized that the statutory timeline under Rule 3A—requiring resolution within 30 days—ensures the remedy is prompt

Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the specialized statutory forum

It granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Grievance Officer and subsequently the Grievance Appellate Committee

The Court directed the Grievance Officer to take immediate steps to process the complaints for the Appellate Committee’s consideration

It further noted that the grievance must be decided within 30 days of receipt of the communication from the Grievance Officer

All rights and contentions were left open for the parties to agitate before the appropriate forum