Instagram Suspension: Social Media Not a 'Public Duty', Rules Delhi HC
Delhi High Court rules that Meta's social media platforms do not perform a public duty, denying writ jurisdiction in an account suspension case.
In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal standing of social media giants in India, the Delhi High Court has declared that providing a platform for communication and social interaction does not constitute a governmental function or a public duty. This observation came during a hearing regarding an Instagram account suspension, where the court ruled that Meta Platforms India cannot be held accountable under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Core of the Legal Battle
The case was brought forward by Sarthak Bhagat, who approached the court after his Instagram accounts were disabled. According to the petitioner, the suspension happened without any prior notice or an opportunity to explain his side. The notification he received stated that his accounts were disabled for violating Instagram’s Community Standards and warned that the information would be permanently deleted.
Bhagat argued that he had attempted to use the in-app review mechanism, but his accounts were not restored, and the platform failed to provide specific reasons for the disabling of his profile.
Public Discourse vs. Public Duty
Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the matter, addressed the argument that because platforms like Instagram play a massive role in shaping public opinion and disseminating information, they should be treated as performing a public function. The court, however, disagreed with this interpretation.
The court observed that while Instagram is indeed a significant tool for public discourse, this is a consequence of its operations rather than a legal duty. The judge noted that Meta is neither obligated to provide such a platform as part of a public duty nor is it legally compelled to offer services that are essentially voluntary and driven by the users.
“Respondent No. 3 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 court stated in its October 27 order.
Private Nature of Meta's Operations
The High Court emphasized that Meta’s operations remain private. It pointed out that there is no governmental mandate that delegates any traditional State function to the company. Therefore, because Meta does not perform a public function, it does not fall under the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
As for the petitioner's quest for justice, the court suggested that the appropriate legal path would be a civil suit, where he could potentially seek damages if he could prove a loss.
The Role of the Government and GAC
The petitioner had also sought relief against the Union of India, claiming that the government had failed in its statutory duty. He mentioned that he had filed an appeal with the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) on September 11, 2026, under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, but the appeal remained pending past the 30-day limit.
The court declined to grant a writ of mandamus against the government, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a concrete neglect of statutory obligation. However, the court did not leave the petitioner entirely without recourse; it directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide on his pending appeal expeditiously.
With these directions, the High Court disposed of the petition and all associated applications.