LinkedIn Doesn't Perform Public Function, Account Restriction Can't Be Challenged In Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the restriction of a user's LinkedIn account, holding that the social networking platform does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty and is therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that merely providing a platform for communication and social interaction does not amount to performing a governmental function or a function integral to the discharge of State responsibilities.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Mayank Jain challenging the restriction imposed on his LinkedIn account by LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited.
Jain contended that his account was restricted without any prior warning, without specifying the provisions of the User Agreement or Professional Community Policies allegedly violated, and without identifying the particular activity that led to the restriction.
He further submitted that despite repeated representations, appeals and requests for a manual review, LinkedIn continued to issue repetitive and template-based responses referring to the "number and/or severity" of unspecified violations. According to him, the platform neither furnished any supporting material nor passed a reasoned order explaining the restriction.
Jain also argued that although the restriction was initially described as temporary, it had continued indefinitely.
At the outset, the Court noted that Jain had sought reliefs primarily against LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer, both private entities.
It said that although the Union of India was impleaded as a respondent, no specific relief or direction was sought against it.
The Court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained against a private entity if it performs functions that can be characterised as public functions.
However, it clarified that for a private entity to fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction, it must be demonstrated that its actions involve the performance of a public duty or function, that the activity is linked to public interest or a State obligation, and that the function is integral to State responsibilities or is undertaken by virtue of powers vested by law.
Justice Mahajan observed that although 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 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.
It also noted that LinkedIn was neither obligated to provide such a platform in discharge of a public duty nor legally compelled to offer its services, which remain voluntary and user-driven.
It further held that the platform's resident grievance officer could also not be considered to be performing a public function or discharging a public duty.
“Thus, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's legal recourse appears more appropriate for a civil suit, where the petitioner could claim damages, if any,” the Court said.
It also took note of the fact that Jain 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, concerning the grievance.
Accordingly, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.