Introduction
Social media accounts are closely bound up with personal expression, livelihood and the personal data that users build up on a platform over the years. When an account is disabled, the user stands to lose access to that content and data, and the platform’s decision is usually communicated in brief and standardised terms.
A question that follows is whether a user may invoke the writ jurisdiction of a High Court against the platform, which is a private entity. In Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 15685/2026, a single judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Amit Mahajan, has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against Meta Platforms India in respect of the disabling of an Instagram account, since Meta cannot be said to perform a public function or discharge a public duty. The decision is a useful indication of the remedies that remain available to users, and of the statutory grievance redressal framework that operates against intermediaries.
Factual Background
The Petitioner’s Instagram accounts were disabled by Meta Platforms India without prior notice and without an opportunity to respond. The only reason communicated to him was an alleged violation of Instagram’s Community Standards. He was further informed that the accounts could not be reviewed again and that the information associated with them would be permanently deleted.
The Petitioner sought a review through Instagram’s in-app mechanism, but the accounts were not restored, and no specific reasons were provided. On 11 September 2026, he then appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee (“GAC”) under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules, 2021”). The appeal remained pending even after the period of 30 days prescribed under Rule 3A(4) had expired. He thereafter approached the High Court.
Contentions Before the Court
The Petitioner contended that the disabling of his accounts was arbitrary, having been effected without notice or reasons, and that the in-app review had failed to restore them. He also pointed out that the GAC had not decided his appeal within the statutory period of 30 days. In addition to challenging the action of Meta, he sought directions to the Union Government to ensure Meta’s compliance with the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) and the IT Rules, 2021. The material available on the decision does not set out the submissions made on behalf of Meta.
Meta Is Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction
The Court observed that the Petitioner had not shown how a writ petition under Article 226 could lie against Meta, which is a private entity. It noted that a private body can be made subject to writ jurisdiction only where it performs a public duty or function, where its activities involve public interest or a State obligation, and where the function is either integral to the functions of the State or is carried out under powers conferred by law.
Applying this approach, the Court held that Meta’s operations are private in character and that no governmental mandate delegates to it a traditional State function. The Court was of the view that providing a platform for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, amount to a public function. The fact that public discourse takes place on such platforms was treated as a consequence of the way they operate, and not as a public duty cast upon the platform. Meta was accordingly held not to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court also indicated that a civil suit, in which damages could be claimed, appeared to be the more suitable remedy against Meta.
No Mandamus against the Union Government; Direction to the GAC
As regards the prayer directed against the Union Government, the Court noted that a writ of mandamus requires proof that a public authority has neglected a statutory duty. The Petitioner had not placed any concrete material on record to show such neglect, and this part of the petition therefore did not succeed.
The Court did, however, take note of the grievance that the GAC appeal had remained pending beyond the period of 30 days under Rule 3A(4) of the IT Rules, 2021. It directed the GAC to decide the Petitioner’s appeal expeditiously.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The decision indicates that a user whose account has been disabled by a social media platform is unlikely to find a remedy under Article 226 against the platform itself, and that the relief would have to be pursued through the statutory grievance mechanism under the IT Rules, 2021 or through a civil action. The Court’s direction to the GAC also suggests that the timeline in Rule 3A(4) is one that the Court is prepared to see observed, even though it declined to grant the wider reliefs sought.
From the perspective of users, it would be prudent to use the platform’s in-app review at the earliest, to approach the GAC within the prescribed period if that review is unsuccessful, and to preserve copies of the notices received and of the account content and data, particularly where the platform has indicated that the information will be permanently deleted. Where the loss is financial or reputational, the ruling points towards a civil suit as the forum for seeking compensation.
From the perspective of platforms and intermediaries, the decision does not remove the need for a fair and documented process. Notice of the action, the specific ground relied upon, a meaningful review and clarity on what happens to the user’s data after an account is disabled would continue to be relevant to the grievance redressal framework under the IT Rules, 2021, and, as the data protection regime under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is brought into operation, to the manner in which user data is retained, erased and accounted for.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with mridusha.guha@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com