Sanchit Gupta Vs Union of India And Anr. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the suspension of the petitioner’s X (formerly Twitter) account. The petitioner, an independent IT consultant, had subscribed to X Premium and X Premium Plus services and had been receiving advertising revenue from September 2023 until his account was suspended. He alleged that his account was suspended and monetisation paused on 15 July 2024 without any show cause notice, intimation or warning, despite filing multiple appeals for restoration. He contended that X Corp violated the principles of natural justice and his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and argued that X Corp performed a public function, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. He also sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to enforce the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against X Corp.
The Court observed that all substantive allegations were directed against X Corp, a privately owned social media platform. Examining the concept of a “public function” under Article 226, the Court noted that a writ against a private entity is maintainable only where the entity performs a public duty or governmental function, acts under statutory compulsion, or discharges functions integral to the State. Although X facilitates public discourse and information dissemination, the Court found that it operates voluntarily as a private communication platform without governmental delegation or statutory obligation to perform public duties. Its services, therefore, could not be equated with governmental functions or public duties.
