The Delhi High Court ruled that a writ petition seeking restoration of a disabled Instagram account is not maintainable against Meta.
The court observed that Instagram's role in public discourse does not make it a public authority.
While refusing to order account restoration through writ jurisdiction, the court directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide Sarthak Bhagat's pending appeal expeditiously.
The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition seeking the restoration of a disabled Instagram account is not maintainable against Meta Platforms, ruling that the remedy must be pursued through a civil suit, Bar and Bench reported. Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Meta does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty that would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court made the observations while disposing of a petition filed by Sarthak Bhagat, who challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. According to the report, in its October 27 order, the court declined to direct the Centre to ensure Meta’s compliance with the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, but directed the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to decide Bhagat’s appeal expeditiously.
Instagram’s Role In Public Discourse Does Not Make It A Public Authority
In Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors, the court examined whether Meta’s operation of Instagram could be considered a public function that would justify a writ petition seeking restoration of a disabled account.
The court acknowledged that Instagram plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, the report said. However, it held that the platform’s primary function is to provide a space for expression, with public discourse emerging as a consequence of its operations rather than constituting a public duty.
“Its operations remain private in nature, and no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to it. Respondent No. 3 [Meta] 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 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,” it added.
The court also declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central government to ensure Meta’s compliance with the IT Act and the 2021 Rules. It said such a direction requires a clear demonstration that a statutory duty has been neglected, which was not apparent in the case.
GAC Asked To Decide Appeal Expeditiously
Bhagat had approached the court after Instagram disabled his accounts, informing him that they had violated its community standards. He argued that he had sought a review through Instagram’s in-app mechanism, but his accounts were not restored and the platform did not provide specific reasons for the decision.
He subsequently approached the GAC under Rule 3A of the 2021 IT Rules. His appeal, filed on September 11, remained pending beyond the prescribed 30-day period, he told the court.
While declining to order the restoration of the accounts through writ jurisdiction, the court directed the GAC to decide Bhagat’s appeal expeditiously.
The ruling clarifies the limits of Article 226 in disputes involving private social media platforms. According to the court, a challenge to Meta’s decision to disable an Instagram account must be brought through a civil suit rather than a writ petition, although the grievance redressal process remains available.
