Follow us on Google News
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging restrictions imposed on a LinkedIn account, holding that the social media platform does not perform a public function and therefore cannot ordinarily be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Amit Mahajan, in an order dated November 2, said that merely providing a platform for communication, professional interaction and social engagement does not transform a private company into an entity performing a governmental or public duty.
The petitioner had approached the court alleging that LinkedIn restricted his account without prior warning and without clearly identifying the provisions of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that he had allegedly violated.
Petitioner Challenged Indefinite Account Restriction
According to the petition, LinkedIn initially indicated that the restriction was temporary.
However, the petitioner alleged that the restriction continued indefinitely despite repeated requests for a manual review.
He also claimed that LinkedIn continued to send template-based responses referring to the “number and/or severity” of unspecified violations without providing supporting material or explaining the exact basis of the action.
The reliefs sought in the case were primarily directed against LinkedIn Technology Information Private Ltd and its resident grievance officer.
The Union government had also been made a party to the proceedings, but the court noted that no specific relief or direction had been sought against it.
Court Examines Scope of Article 226
The central legal question before the court was whether LinkedIn could be subjected to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Article 226 empowers high courts to issue directions, orders and writs to persons or authorities within their jurisdiction.
The court noted that writ jurisdiction can, in certain circumstances, extend to private entities.
However, such an entity must be performing a public duty or a function sufficiently connected with governmental responsibilities.
The court said that for a writ to be maintainable against a private body, its activity should involve a public interest linked to a state obligation, or the function should be integral to state functions or carried out through authority vested by law.
LinkedIn’s Role Remains Private, Court Says
Justice Mahajan observed that LinkedIn plays an important role in disseminating information and shaping public discussion.
However, the court said those consequences do not convert its underlying activity into a public function.
LinkedIn’s primary role remains the provision of a privately operated platform for professional communication and interaction.
The court noted that no governmental mandate requires LinkedIn to perform a traditional state function.
It also observed that the company is not legally compelled to provide its platform as part of any public duty.
The service remains voluntary and user-driven.
On that basis, the court held that LinkedIn and its grievance officer could not be challenged through a writ petition merely because the platform has a significant influence on communication and professional networking.
Public Influence Does Not Equal Public Duty
The judgment draws a distinction between a private platform having substantial social influence and actually performing a public function.
The court said public discourse emerging from LinkedIn’s operations is a consequence of the platform’s services rather than a function assigned to it by the state.
A private company does not become subject to constitutional writ jurisdiction simply because large numbers of people rely on its services.
For Article 226 to apply, the nature of the function itself must have a sufficiently public or governmental character.
Civil Remedy Remains Available
While dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, the court indicated that the petitioner was not left without any remedy.
It said a civil suit would be a more appropriate route if the petitioner wished to seek damages or other relief arising from the restriction of his account.
The court also noted that the petitioner had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The grievance mechanism provides users of online intermediaries with a separate avenue to challenge certain decisions taken by platforms.
Ruling Clarifies Limits of Writ Jurisdiction Over Platforms
The decision adds to the developing legal debate over the relationship between large online platforms and constitutional remedies.
Digital platforms can play a major role in professional networking, public discussion, information distribution and access to economic opportunities.
However, the Delhi High Court has made clear that scale or influence alone does not automatically make a private platform a public authority.
The determining factor is whether the company is performing a duty that is fundamentally governmental, imposed by law or directly connected with a state obligation.
In LinkedIn’s case, the court found that threshold was not met.
The petition was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue other remedies available under civil law and the applicable grievance framework.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
