The Delhi High Court has held that Meta Platforms India cannot ordinarily be subjected to writ jurisdiction merely for providing a social media platform, observing that its operations do not constitute a public function. Justice Amit Mahajan disposed of a petition filed by Sarthak Bhagat challenging the disabling of his Instagram accounts and seeking action against the platform.
In its October 27, 2026 order, the Court also directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide Bhagat’s pending appeal expeditiously.
Background
Bhagat approached the High Court after his Instagram accounts were disabled without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. According to the petition, the platform informed him that his account had violated its Community Standards and stated that the information would be permanently deleted.
Bhagat contended that he had sought a review through Instagram’s in-app mechanism, but his accounts were not restored and no specific reasons were provided. He subsequently filed an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee on September 11, 2026, under Rule 3A of the Information Technology Rules, 2021. He claimed that the appeal remained undecided beyond the prescribed 30-day period.
Justice Mahajan examined whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be maintained against Meta, a private entity.
The Court observed,
“While the platform provided by Respondent No. 3 plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, its primary function is to provide a platform for expression, with public discourse being a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty.”
It further held that Meta’s services remained private in nature and were not delegated traditional State functions. The Court noted that a civil suit appeared to be a more appropriate legal remedy for Bhagat to seek damages, if any.
Regarding the relief sought against the Union of India, the Court found that the petition did not establish a clear failure to discharge a statutory duty warranting a writ of mandamus.
The High Court directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide Bhagat’s pending appeal expeditiously.
It disposed of the writ petition along with the pending applications.
