The Delhi High Court has clarified that individuals challenging the blocking or restriction of their LinkedIn accounts cannot ordinarily seek relief through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Instead, they must pursue the remedy of a civil suit, the Court has held.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that LinkedIn, being a private entity, does not perform any public function or discharge a public duty that would bring it within the scope of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The Court explained that a private organisation can be subjected to writ jurisdiction only where its functions are essentially governmental in nature or where it exercises authority derived from a statutory or legal mandate.
While acknowledging LinkedIn’s considerable influence in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, the Court made it clear that the platform’s role in facilitating public discourse does not convert its activities into a public function.
The Court observed that LinkedIn’s principal purpose is to provide users with a platform for expression and professional networking. The resulting public discourse is merely an outcome of its operations and cannot, by itself, be treated as the discharge of a public duty.
It further noted that no governmental function has been entrusted to LinkedIn and that the platform is not legally required to make its services available as part of any public obligation. Its services are voluntary and driven by user participation.
Accordingly, the Court held that a civil suit would be the appropriate remedy for individuals seeking to contest decisions concerning the suspension, blocking or restriction of their LinkedIn accounts.
The ruling came in a petition instituted by Mayank Jain, who challenged the restriction imposed on his LinkedIn account. He alleged that the platform had taken the action without issuing a prior warning or identifying the specific clauses of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that he was accused of violating.
The High Court also recorded that Jain had approached the Grievance Appellate Committee constituted under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Upon examining the nature of LinkedIn’s functions, the Court concluded that neither the platform nor its resident grievance officer could be proceeded against under the writ jurisdiction in the matter.
Advocate Anjali appeared for the petitioner. Central Government Standing Counsel Piyush Gupta and advocate Atishay Jain represented the Union of India, while advocates Abhishek K Singh, Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali and Saksham Chaturvedi appeared for LinkedIn.
The post LinkedIn account blocking disputes must be raised through civil suits, not writ petitions: Delhi High Court appeared first on India Legal.