When does a private company answer to a writ court? The Delhi High Court has held that providing a platform for expression and networking is a private activity, not a public function or public duty, so a challenge to a LinkedIn Account Restriction cannot be brought in writ jurisdiction.
New Delhi: A user whose LinkedIn account was restricted without prior warning has had his writ petition dismissed by the Delhi High Court, which held that LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited and its resident grievance officer do not perform a public function or discharge a public duty and are therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution [Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors.].
Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the petition as not maintainable in an oral order delivered on November 2, 2026, observing that the petitioner’s legal recourse appeared to lie in a civil suit for damages.
The threshold for a private body
Justice Mahajan accepted that a writ under Article 226 can lie against any person or entity, including a private body, if it performs functions that can be called public functions. But the threshold is high:
“The threshold for a private entity to be amenable to writ jurisdiction is that it must undertake functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue of power vested by law.”
A platform for expression is not a State function
Applying that test, the Court acknowledged LinkedIn’s role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, but held that public discourse is a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty. Relying on Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880, it said:
“Respondent No. 2 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.”
Since LinkedIn itself performs no public function, the Court held that its resident grievance officer could not be said to perform one either.
The user’s grievance
The petitioner, Mayank Jain, said LinkedIn restricted his account without any prior warning, without disclosing the specific provision of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that was allegedly violated, and without identifying the activity or conduct behind the restriction.
He contended that despite repeated representations, appeals and requests for a manual review, the platform kept sending repetitive, template-based responses citing the “number and/or severity” of unspecified violations, without furnishing supporting material or passing a reasoned order. According to the petition, a restriction initially described as temporary had continued indefinitely.
No relief sought against the Union
The Court noted at the outset that the reliefs were directed at LinkedIn (Respondent No. 2), a private entity, and its resident grievance officer (Respondent No. 3). Although the Union of India had been arrayed as Respondent No. 1, no specific prayer or direction was sought against it, and the petitioner failed to show how a writ petition was maintainable against the two private respondents.
Civil suit and the Grievance Appellate Committee
“Thus, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s legal recourse appears more appropriate for a civil suit, where the petitioner could claim damages, if any.”
The Court also recorded that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 on the same grievance. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Why the order matters
The order adds to a consistent line of Delhi High Court rulings that social media and online service providers, however large their reach, are private actors when they suspend, restrict or disable user accounts. Article 226 reaches a private body only where its function is governmental in character or flows from a power conferred by law, and running a voluntary, user-driven platform does not meet that test.
In practical terms, users aggrieved by account restrictions are pointed towards the remedies built into the IT Rules, 2021, chiefly the platform’s grievance officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee, and to civil suits for damages, rather than to writ petitions. The order does not decide whether the restriction itself was justified.
Case Title: Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 16207/2026; CNR No. DLHC010527412026; 2026:DHC:9777]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate Anjali
For the Union of India: Piyush Gupta, CGSC, with Advocate Atishay Jain
For LinkedIn and its Grievance Officer: Advocates Abhishek K. Singh, Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali and Saksham Chaturvedi