The Delhi High Court has held that Meta Platforms India cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for disabling a user's Instagram account.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that providing a social media platform for communication and interaction does not amount to performing a public function or discharging a public duty.

The Court said that although social media platforms play a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, their primary function remains providing a platform for expression, with public discourse being a consequence of their operations rather than a public duty.

“Merely 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.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Sarthak Bhagat, who challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts by Meta Platforms India without any prior notice or opportunity to respond.

Bhagat submitted that the only reason communicated to him was that his account had been disabled for allegedly violating Instagram's Community Standards. He was also informed that his account could not be reviewed again and that his information would be permanently deleted.

He contended that despite seeking a review through Instagram's in-app mechanism, his accounts were not restored and no specific reasons for the action were provided.

Bhagat further submitted that he had approached the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, on September 11, 2026. However, despite the expiry of the 30-day period contemplated under Rule 3A(4), his appeal remained pending.

At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner had sought reliefs against Meta, a private entity, but had failed to establish how a writ petition was maintainable against it.

It reiterated that although a writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained against private entities, it must be demonstrated that the entity performs a public duty or function, that its activities involve public interest or are linked to a State obligation, and that the function is integral to State functions or is undertaken by virtue of powers vested by law.

Applying the said principles, the Court held that Meta's operations remain private in nature and that no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to the company.

“Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to perform a public function or discharge a public duty. Thus, Respondent No.3 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the Court held.

It further observed that Bhagat's legal remedy against Meta appeared more appropriate in the form of a civil suit, where he could seek damages, if any.

With regard to the plea seeking directions to the Union Government to ensure Meta's compliance with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, the Court held that a writ of mandamus could be issued only upon demonstrating neglect of a statutory duty by the concerned public authority.

It observed that Bhagat had not placed concrete material establishing any such neglect or failure on the part of the Union Government to discharge its statutory obligations.

However, taking note of the grievance concerning the pendency of the appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee, the Court directed the Committee to decide Bhagat's appeal expeditiously.