Account blocking by LinkedIn to be challenged through civil suit, not writ petition: Delhi High Court

The Court underscored that LinkedIn does not perform a public function or public duty.
LinkedIn and Delhi High Court
LinkedIn and Delhi High Court
Published on: 
2 min read
Listen to this article

The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against LinkedIn or its resident grievance officer over their decision to block/restrict an account [Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors]. 

Justice Amit Mahajan held that the threshold for a private entity to be amenable to writ jurisdiction is that it must undertake functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue of power vested by law.

The Court underscored that LinkedIn does not perform a public function or public duty. 

“While the platform provided by Respondent No. 2 [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. Its operations remain private in nature, and no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to it. Respondent No. 2 is neither obligated to provide such a platform in discharge of a public duty nor legally compelled to offer its services, which are voluntary and user-driven,” the Court observed. 

It added that a civil suit is a more appropriate remedy in such a case.  

Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Also Read
Instagram account block by Meta has to be challenged by way of civil suit, not writ petition: Delhi High Court
LinkedIn and Delhi High Court

The High Court rendered these findings while dealing with a plea filed by Mayank Jain, who alleged that LinkedIn had restricted his account without prior warning or disclosing the specific provisions of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that he had allegedly violated. 

After hearing the case, the High Court noted that Jain had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

It concluded that LinkedIn or its resident grievance officer cannot be subjected to the writ jurisdiction. 

Advocate Anjali appeared for the petitioner. 

CGSC Piyush Gupta and advocate Atishay Jain represented the Union of India. 

Advocates Abhishek K Singh, Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali and Saksham Chaturvedi represented LinkedIn.

[Read Order]

Attachment
PDF
Mayank Jain v Union of India & Ors
Preview
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com