Meta Does Not Discharge Public Function, Rights Under Article 19 Cannot Be Invoked Against A Private Entity: Delhi High Court Told

Meta Platforms Inc, formerly known as Facebook, has informed the Delhi High Court that it does not discharge a public duty or function and as such is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.It has also said that fundamental rights enumerated under Article 19 cannot be invoked against a private entity such as Meta. Meta Inc also provides the Instagram service to users in India. The development came after Meta filed an affidavit objecting to the maintainability of the petition filed by Megha Choubey on behalf of 'Wokeflix'. The plea challenged Meta's decision of disabling the Instagram account and the "link sticker" feature, and also to prohibit Meta from taking action against Petitioner's Instagram account without affording an opportunity to appeal.Arguing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may only be invoked against the "State" or "other Authority" under Article 12, the affidavit states thus:"Meta is neither, as it is a private entity that does not discharge a public function. Specifically, (i) Meta is not obligated to carry out a public duty; (ii) the Government does not control the management and day-to-day functioning of Meta, (iii) the Government has not conferred monopoly status upon Meta, (iv) Meta is not carrying out a function similar to those which can be performed by the State alone (e.g., legislative function, administration and maintenance of law, eminent domain), and (v) Meta provides the Instagram Service voluntarily."Furthermore, Meta has informed the Court that the Petitioner has failed to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because the relationship between Petitioner and Meta arises from a private contract and the dispute at issue is a contractual one. "Accordingly, even assuming Meta performs a public function – which it does not – Petitioner fails to demonstrate that exercise of this Hon'ble Court's writ jurisdiction is appropriate when the dispute at issue is a contractual dispute under Instagram's Terms of Use," the affidavit adds. It has also been argued that Meta does not perform an inalienable sovereign function and does not exclusively perform a function of public importance as a monopoly in its field. "Meta is a private party, and Instagram users in India enter into an agreement with Meta when they register to use the Instagram Service. The Instagram Service is a free and voluntary platform, and Petitioner has no fundamental right to use it," it states.The affidavit also states that while the Petitioner claims that they should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before an action is taken against their account, Meta has argued that such a request is contrary to law. It has been averred that Rule 4(8) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 only requires intermediaries to provide an opportunity to appeal after the action has been taken. It is however pertinent to note that the Centre had told the Court that Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) are expected to issue prior notice to the user before taking any action on the user account and that failure to comply with the same may amount to a violation of Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules 2021.[IT Rules 2021] Social Media Intermediaries Must Respect Fundamental Rights, Issue Notice Before Taking Action Against User Accounts: Centre To Delhi HCCentre had submitted that if the intermediary platform falls under the Significant Social Media Intermediary (SSMI) category as defined in the IT Rules, 2021, then as per rule 4(8) the SSMI is expected to issue a prior notification to the user explaining the action being taken and the grounds or reasons for taking such action.Justice Yashwant Varma has been hearing a bunch of pleas wherein various petitioners have approached the Court over suspension of their twitter accounts, including the petition filed by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde in the case pertaining to suspension of his Twitter account.The batch of petitions will now be heard on May 17.Title: WOKEFLIX THROUGH MEGHA CHOUBEY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Picture Courtesy: The Indian Express

Meta Does Not Discharge Public Function, Rights Under Article 19 Cannot Be Invoked Against A Private Entity: Delhi High Court Told

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Meta Does Not Discharge Public Function, Rights Under Article 19 Cannot Be Invoked Against A Private Entity: Delhi High Court Told

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers