The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Janta Live Press Network Pvt. Ltd. and its director seeking restoration of access to their disabled Gmail account, holding that Google's provision of email services does not, by itself, amount to a public function that can be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Amit Mahajan held that the importance of an email account to a business does not change the legal nature of the service provided by a private company. The Court clarified that the petitioners could pursue other appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
Background
Janta Live Press Network Pvt. Ltd., which operates the Janta Live News media business, including a YouTube news channel, approached the High Court after its Gmail account was allegedly accessed by unauthorised third parties on July 20, 2026. Google subsequently disabled the account, citing unusual activity.
The company's director said he contacted Google's support team through his personal email account and requested restoration of access but received no response. The petitioners also lodged a complaint with the Cyber Police Station, yet the account remained inaccessible.
They argued that a writ petition could be maintained against Google because its digital services performed a public function. They also relied on the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, in support of their plea.
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the grievance but emphasised that the central issue was whether the requested relief could be granted through writ jurisdiction. It explained that Article 226 can apply to private entities when they perform functions that qualify as public functions, but providing commercial digital services does not automatically meet that requirement.
Justice Mahajan observed:
"The decisive consideration thus is the nature of the function and not merely the size or reach of the entity concerned."
The Court noted that email services are offered by several independent providers and are not monopolised by Google. It held that the account's importance to the petitioners' media business, by itself, could not transform the commercial service into a public duty.
The Bench also distinguished the earlier decision in XYZ v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters, which concerned informational privacy, the continued online availability of judicial records and requests for de-indexing and masking personal identifiers. According to the Court, that case was materially different because the present petition concerned restoration of an email account.
It further clarified that obligations under information technology legislation and intermediary rules concerning grievance redressal and compliance do not automatically make account-restriction disputes amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Concluding that the petitioners had not established the performance of a public function in the legal sense required to invoke Article 226, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition.
However, it left the petitioners free to pursue appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
Case Details
- Case Title: Janta Live Press Network Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Google LLC & Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 14915/2026
- Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
- Decision Date: October 8, 2026
