The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mayank Jain challenging the restriction of his LinkedIn account, holding that the private platform does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty that would make it subject to the Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that although LinkedIn plays a significant role in information sharing and public discussions, its primary function remains the operation of a private platform.
Background
The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited had restricted his account without issuing a prior warning or identifying the specific provisions of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that he had allegedly violated.
According to the petitioner, despite submitting repeated representations, appeals and requests for manual review, the platform continued to provide standardised responses referring to the "number and/or severity" of unspecified violations. He also claimed that the restriction, initially described as temporary, had continued indefinitely.
The petitioner sought relief against LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer, while the Union of India was also impleaded as a respondent. However, no specific relief or direction was sought against the Union.
Justice Amit Mahajan examined whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained against LinkedIn, a private company. The Court explained that constitutional writ jurisdiction can extend to private entities, but only when they perform functions involving a public duty or governmental responsibility.
The Court observed:
"A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against any person or entity, including private bodies, if they perform functions that can be considered ‘public functions’."
The Court further clarified that merely providing a platform for communication and public interaction does not automatically make a private company responsible for performing a governmental function.
While acknowledging LinkedIn's role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, Justice Mahajan noted that public discourse was a consequence of the platform's operations rather than a public duty entrusted to it by the State.
The Court observed:
"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."
The Court held that LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer could not be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in the circumstances of the case.
It further observed that the petitioner's more appropriate legal remedy appeared to be a civil suit, through which he could seek damages, if any. The Court also took note that the petitioner had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under Section 3A(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Finding the writ petition not maintainable against the private respondents, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16207/2026
Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision Date: November 02, 2026
