In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court against restriction of the petitioner’s LinkedIn account by LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited (LinkedIn) without any prior warning, without disclosing the specific provision of the User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that were violated, and without identifying the particular activity or conduct forming basis of such restriction, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the petition for lack of maintainability.
The petitioner contended that despite repeated representations, appeals, and requests for a manual review, LinkedIn continued to issue repetitive and template-based responses citing the “number and/or severity” of unspecified violations, without furnishing any supporting material or passing a reasoned order. It was also submitted that even though the restriction was initially represented as temporary, the same had continued indefinitely.
The Court noted that the grievances were against LinkedIn, a private entity, and its resident grievance officer. It was also noted that even though Union of India had been arrayed as respondent 1, no specific prayers or directions had been sought against it. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to persuade the Court as to how a writ petition was maintainable against respondents 2 and 3, since a writ petition is maintainable against any person or entity, including private bodies, if they perform functions that can be considered ‘public functions’.
It was stated that the threshold for a private entity to be amenable to writ jurisdiction is that it must undertake functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue of power vested by law. The Court held that while the platform provided by LinkedIn 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.
The Court held that 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. Hence, the Court opined that LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer were not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that the petitioner’s legal recourse appeared more appropriate for a civil suit, where he could claim damages, if any.
It was also noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee under Section 3A (3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 for the present grievance. Thus, the present petition was dismissed for not being maintainable.
