The Delhi High Court has held that Meta Platforms India, which operates the social media platform Instagram, does not discharge any public duty or perform governmental functions and, therefore, cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because its platform facilitates communication and public discourse.
Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by Sarthak Bhagat challenging the disabling of his Instagram accounts without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. The Court observed that although social media platforms play a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, their operations remain private in nature. The Court stated:
“While the platform provided by Meta 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 the 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 petitioner contended that despite seeking an in-app review and approaching the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A of the IT Rules, 2021, his accounts remained disabled and his appeal was pending beyond the prescribed 30-day period.
The Court observed that although Instagram plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, its primary function remains private in nature.
“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 observed, relying on Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880.
The Court further held that the petitioner could pursue a civil suit against Meta, including a claim for damages, if applicable. It also declined to issue a writ of mandamus against the Union Government, noting that no specific failure to discharge a statutory duty had been established. However, the Court directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide the petitioner’s appeal expeditiously and disposed of the petition.
