Providing email services not a public function: Delhi High Court dismisses plea against Google

The Delhi High Court recently held that providing email services is a commercial activity and does not amount to the discharge of a public function merely because such services are widely used or essential to a business [Janta Live Press Network Vs Google LLC].

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a media company seeking restoration of its Gmail account, which was allegedly compromised and subsequently disabled by Google.

The Court held that a private company's provision of email services, including suspension of accounts on security grounds, does not ordinarily constitute a public function that would permit a writ petition against it.

"The importance of a particular account to its user, or its widespread use, does not translate to mean that the same constitutes ‘public function’. The decisive consideration thus is the nature of the function and not merely the size or reach of the entity concerned," the Court observed.

The dispute arose after Janta Live Press Network Private Limited, which operates a media business under the name Janta Live News, including a YouTube news channel, allegedly lost access to its Gmail account.

According to the petitioners, the account was accessed without authorisation by third parties on July 20, 2026. Google subsequently disabled the account, citing unusual activity.

The company's director approached Google's support team through his personal email address, explaining the circumstances and requesting restoration of access. However, he allegedly received no response.

The petitioners also lodged a complaint with the Cyber Police Station. With the account remaining inaccessible, they approached the High Court seeking directions to Google to verify their original recovery credentials and restore access.

They argued that although Google is a private entity, a writ petition against it was maintainable because it performed a public function.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the grievance but clarified that the question was whether the relief could be granted through writ proceedings.

It explained that writ petitions can be maintained against private entities when they perform functions closely connected to the State's obligations or discharge public duties.

However, the mere provision of digital services does not satisfy this requirement.

"The provision of providing e-mail services is a commercial activity undertaken by private entities. Neither the provision of an email account nor its suspension or disabling on security grounds, without more, constitutes the performance of a public function or discharge of a public duty," the Court said.

Justice Mahajan also noted that email services are offered by several independent providers and that Google does not enjoy a monopoly over such services.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, while leaving the petitioners free to pursue other remedies available under law.

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Adil Sharf Uddin, Deepanshu Jha and Divyanshu Bisht.

Google LLC was represented by Advocate Aishwarya Kane.

Central Government Standing Counsel Nitinjya Chaudhary appeared for the second respondent, along with Advocate Rahul Mourya and Government Pleader Shubham Goyal.

[Read Judgment]