Instagram account deactivation cannot be challenged through a writ petition against Meta, the Delhi High Court has held, ruling that running a social media platform is not a public function and that a user’s remedy lies in a civil suit.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that Meta Platforms India is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for disabling a user’s Instagram accounts, while directing the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide the user’s pending appeal expeditiously [Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Amit Mahajan held that providing a platform for communication and social interaction does not amount to performing a public function or discharging a public duty.
The petitioner’s grievance
The petitioner, Sarthak Bhagat, challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts by Meta without prior notice or a chance to respond. According to the petition, the only reason given was an alleged violation of Instagram’s Community Standards, and he was told the accounts could not be reviewed again and that his information would be permanently deleted. He said an in-app review request brought no restoration and no specific reasons.
He had also approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 on September 11, 2026, but the appeal remained pending beyond the 30 days contemplated under Rule 3A(4). He further sought directions to the Union Government to secure Meta’s compliance with the IT Act, 2000 and the 2021 Rules.
Not a public function
The Court noted that a writ can lie against a private entity only where it performs a public duty or function, its activities are linked to a State obligation, or it exercises powers vested by law. It held that Meta’s operations remain private in nature and that no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to the company. While accepting that social media platforms play a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, the Court said public discourse is a consequence of their operations rather than a public duty.
“Merely 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.”
“Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to perform a public function or discharge a public duty. Thus, Respondent No.3 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court said the petitioner’s remedy against Meta appeared to lie in a civil suit, where he could claim damages, if any.
No mandamus against the Union, but the appeal must be heard
On the prayer against the Union Government, the Court held that a writ of mandamus issues only on proof that a public authority has neglected a statutory duty, and found no concrete material showing any such failure. Taking note of the delay before the Grievance Appellate Committee, however, it directed the Committee to decide Bhagat’s appeal expeditiously.
Why the judgment matters
Account suspensions by social media platforms are a growing source of litigation, and users have often turned to writ courts for quick restoration. The ruling closes that route against the platform itself: a private intermediary enforcing its own community standards is not, on this view, discharging a public duty, so the user must sue in a civil court or use the statutory appeal under the IT Rules.
The direction to the Grievance Appellate Committee shows where the Court sees the public-law remedy. The Committee is a body created under the IT Rules with a 30-day timeline, and the Court was willing to hold it to that process even while declining to issue a writ against Meta.
Case Title: Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court