Skip to content
Friday, 13 November 2026 Judgments, law jobs and study notes, written by a practising advocate
High Courts

Instagram or LinkedIn Account Blocked? No Writ Against the Platform, File a Civil Suit: Delhi High Court (Sarthak Bhagat; Mayank Jain)

By Akinchan Aggarwal, AdvocateB.A. (Hons.) Gold Medalist, LL.B. (University Rank 2), LL.M. (Disputes Resolution), UGC NET · 4 min read

If Instagram or LinkedIn blocks your account, can you file a writ petition in the High Court? Twice in a week, the Delhi High Court said no. In Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India (Instagram, 27 October 2026) and Mayank Jain v. Union of India (LinkedIn, 2 November 2026), Justice Amit Mahajan held that a social media platform does not perform a public function, so it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The right remedy against the platform is a civil suit.

Read the judgment: Sarthak Bhagat (Instagram)
Read the judgment: Mayank Jain (LinkedIn)

Cases at a glance

  • Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 15685/2026, 2026:DHC:9548, decided 27 October 2026. Respondents: Union of India, the Grievance Appellate Committee and Meta Platforms India.
  • Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 16207/2026, decided 2 November 2026. Respondents: Union of India, LinkedIn Technology Information Pvt. Ltd. and its Resident Grievance Officer.
  • Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court (single judge).
  • Result: No writ against the platforms. In the Instagram case, the Grievance Appellate Committee was directed to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. The LinkedIn petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

What happened

The Instagram case

Sarthak Bhagat’s Instagram accounts were disabled without prior notice or a chance to respond. The only message said his account did not follow Instagram’s Community Standards, that his information would be permanently deleted and that he could not request another review. An in-app review failed. On 11 September 2026 he appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) under Rule 3A of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The 30 days contemplated by Rule 3A(4) passed with no hearing, so he went to the High Court against Meta, the Union and the GAC.

The LinkedIn case

Mayank Jain’s LinkedIn account was restricted without warning. LinkedIn did not say which part of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies he had broken. His appeals and requests for manual review drew template replies about the “number and/or severity” of unspecified violations. The restriction, described as temporary, continued indefinitely. He had also appealed to the GAC.

What the Court held

1. The test for a writ against a private company

A writ under Article 226 can lie against a private body only if it performs a public function. The act complained of must be in the performance of a public duty, the activity must involve public interest or be linked to a State obligation, and the function must be integral to State functions or done under power vested by law. The functions must be “fundamentally governmental in nature”.

2. Running a platform is not a public function

Instagram plays a significant role in spreading information and shaping public opinion, but its primary function is to provide a platform for expression. Public discourse is a consequence of its operations, not a public duty. No governmental mandate delegates a State function to it; it is not obliged by law to offer its services, which are voluntary and user-driven. The Court relied on Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880, which held the same for X (Twitter).

3. The grievance officer is not a public authority either

In the LinkedIn case, the Court added that the platform’s Resident Grievance Officer, being an officer of a body that performs no public function, is also outside writ jurisdiction.

4. Remedy: a civil suit, where damages can be claimed

The petitioner’s recourse “appears more appropriate for a civil suit, where the petitioner could claim damages, if any”. An account ban is, at its core, a dispute under the platform’s terms of service.

5. No mandamus against the Union

Sarthak Bhagat asked the Court to direct the Union to make Meta comply with the IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, including Rule 4(8). The Court refused: mandamus needs concrete proof that the authority neglected a statutory duty, and none was shown.

6. The GAC must decide, and quickly

On the delayed appeal, the Court directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide Sarthak Bhagat’s appeal expeditiously. In the LinkedIn case, the Court noted that the GAC appeal was already pending.

What to do if your account is disabled

  1. Use the in-app appeal and write to the grievance officer. Every intermediary must publish a grievance officer’s details under Rule 3(2) of the IT Rules, 2021. Keep screenshots of the notice and every reply.
  2. Appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A if the grievance officer’s decision goes against you (online, at gac.gov.in), within 30 days of that decision. The GAC is meant to decide within 30 days.
  3. If the GAC sits on your appeal, the Sarthak Bhagat order shows the High Court will direct it to decide. The GAC is set up by the Central Government, which is why the direction could issue to it. Whether a GAC decision itself can be challenged in writ did not arise in these cases.
  4. Against the platform itself, file a civil suit for breach of its terms, restoration and damages. A writ petition against Meta or LinkedIn will not be entertained.

Why it matters

  • Creators and small businesses who depend on their accounts now have a clear answer on the forum: contract, not constitution.
  • The line from Sanchit Gupta (2024) holds for every major platform: X, Instagram and LinkedIn alike.
  • The GAC route matters more: it is the only quick, statutory remedy, and the High Court will push it to decide.

Sources

More in High Courts