Vakil Help Desk News: the Delhi High Court has held that a private platform such as LinkedIn is not performing a public function, so a user cannot challenge an account restriction through a writ petition under Article 226.
Vakil Help Desk News, Litigation & Courts. The Delhi High Court has held that a private online platform — in this case a professional networking site — is not discharging a public function, and so a user who is restricted or suspended cannot bring the platform to court through a writ petition.
The principle, in plain words
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy against the State and against private bodies only when they perform a public function or a public duty. A private company running a social or professional networking service is acting in its own commercial, contractual space — the relationship with a user is governed by its own terms of service, not by public law. Restricting an account is therefore a private decision, not the exercise of a public function.
- No public function: hosting user profiles and moderating accounts is a private, contractual activity.
- Wrong remedy: a writ court will not sit in appeal over a private platform's enforcement of its own rules.
- Where the remedy lies: a user's recourse is in the platform's grievance process and, if needed, an ordinary civil or consumer action — not a writ petition.
What this means for you
If a private platform restricts or suspends your account, a writ petition is usually not the right route. Work through the platform's grievance and appeal process, read the terms you agreed to, and consider a civil or consumer remedy if there is a real contractual or service grievance. We advise on platform disputes, online grievances and civil remedies.