The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of email services by a private entity does not, by itself, constitute the performance of a public function or discharge of a public duty under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court accordingly dismissed a writ petition filed by Janta Live Press Network Pvt. Ltd., which operates the ‘Janta Live News’ media business, seeking restoration of access to its Gmail account.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that merely because a Gmail account is integral to a media business does not alter the nature of the function performed by Google. The Court emphasised that the decisive consideration is the nature of the function performed, rather than the size or reach of the entity concerned.
The petitioners submitted that their Gmail account was allegedly accessed by unauthorised third parties on July 20, 2026, following which Google disabled it citing unusual activity. Despite approaching Google Support and lodging a complaint with the Cyber Police Station, access to the account had not been restored. The petitioners sought directions requiring Google to verify their original recovery credentials and restore full access.
They contended that a writ petition was maintainable against Google because it performs a public function and is subject to obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that providing email, hosting and other digital services is a commercial activity undertaken by private entities. Neither the provision of an email account nor its suspension or disabling on security grounds, without more, amounts to the performance of a public function or discharge of a public duty. The Court also noted that email services are offered by several independent providers and are not monopolised by Google.
The Court further distinguished the petitioners’ reliance on a previous Delhi High Court decision concerning informational privacy and the de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results. It observed that the earlier case concerned reputational harm arising from the continued availability and searchability of judicial records, whereas the present petition sought only restoration of an email account.
The Court added that statutory obligations relating to grievance redressal and intermediary compliance under the IT Act and the 2021 Rules do not automatically convert disputes concerning account restrictions, security incidents or customer support into matters amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Holding that no public function in the strict legal sense required to invoke Article 226 had been demonstrated, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable while leaving the petitioners at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
