Justice Amit Mahajan held that Meta does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty, which are the conditions necessary to maintain a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, blocking of Instagram account by Meta has to be challenged by way of a civil suit and not a writ petition, the Court said.
The Court explained that while Instagram 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 [Meta] 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,” the Court observed in its October 27 order.
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The High Court made the observations while disposing off a plea filed by one Sarthak Bhagat, who had challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts without prior notice or an opportunity to respond.
Instagram informed him that his account had violated its community standards.
Bhagat told the Court that he had sought a review through Instagram's in-app mechanism, but his accounts were not restored and no specific reasons were furnished.
He also approached the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. His appeal, filed on September 11, remained pending beyond the prescribed 30-day period, he contended.
In a detailed order, the Court declined to issue a direction to the Central government to ensure Meta's compliance with the Information Technology Act and the 2021 Rules.
The Court said that a writ of mandamus requires a clear demonstration of neglect of a statutory duty, which was not apparent in the case.
The Court made it clear that the remedy against Meta would be a civil suit and not a writ petition under Article 226.
However, the Court directed the GAC to decide Bhagat's appeal expeditiously.
Advocate Yash Vardhan Kaushik appeared for the petitioner.
Advocates Mohit Bansal, Bhawna and Deepank Yadav represented the Union of India.
Meta was represented through advocates Amee Rana, Yash Karunakaran Nivedita Sudheer.
