Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a professional engaged as an independent IT Consultant in the pharmaceutical sector, against X Corporation (previously Twitter) (respondent 2) after his account was suspended, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. held that X Corp was not amenable to writ jurisdiction since it did not perform a ‘public function’ in the strict legal sense under Article 226 and the petition was not maintainable due to lack of foundation necessary to support the issuance of mandamus.
Background
The petitioner created an account on X with the username ‘@sanchit gs’ and subsequently subscribed to various services such as the X Premium and X Premium Plus services. In August 2023, the petitioner was informed by X Corp. that he was eligible to receive a portion of the advertising revenue generated through his account.
The petitioner received payments as part of this revenue-sharing agreement from September 2023 until his account was suspended. However, in June 2024, the petitioner observed a reduction in the reach of his account and a stagnation in the growth of followers, raising concerns about shadow banning or other restrictive actions being applied to his account without his knowledge.
On 15-07-2024, the petitioner received a notification from X Corp. saying that his account’s monetization was paused due to the suspension of his account, without any show cause notice, intimation, or warning.
As a result of the action taken by X Corp, the petitioner filed multiple appeals to restore his account, none of which, according to the petitioner, had been acknowledged or resolved by the platform.
The petitioner contended that X Corp was amenable to writ jurisdiction since it performed a ‘public function’ by facilitating public discourse through its social media platform.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that all allegations were against X Corp. However, the Union of India (respondent 1) was involved since it was asserted that the Union is responsible for ensuring that constitutional rights are not infringed upon by private entities, especially those that play a significant role in public communication such as X Corp.
The Court stated that the concept of a ‘public function’ under Article 226 played a crucial role in determining the maintainability of a writ petition against private entities or non-state actors. Further, the Court stated that the threshold for a private entity to be amenable to writ jurisdiction is that it must undertake functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue of power vested by law.
The Court said that there was no directive from the government which delegated state functions to X and that the platform was not mandated to carry out public duties. It was also stated that X was voluntary and user-driven which distinguished it from entities that operated under a compulsion of law or provided services that were essential public utilities.
The Court said that it could not be said that X Corp performs a public function or discharges a public duty because the function or service of providing a platform for communication could not be considered as a function similar to that of a governmental function. Thus, the Court held that X Corp. was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Further, the Court opined that the petitioner’s legal recourse appeared more appropriate for a claim of breach of contract rather than a constitutional violation. The Court said that the proper venue for addressing such a breach would be the civil courts, where contractual disputes are adjudicated.
The Court advised the petitioner to pursue this claim through civil litigation if he believed that his rights under the policy of X Corp had been violated, as the remedy for breach of contract lay therein.
The Court noted that the petitioner sought to enforce the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and that the essence of the relief was to compel regulatory oversight by the government to regulate the activities of digital entities like X Corp to protect public interests and uphold digital ethics.
However, the Court said that the issuance of a writ of mandamus required a clear demonstration that there had been a neglect of statutory duty by the Union and the facts as well as the grounds of the present matter did not sufficiently indicate that the Union had failed in their regulatory duties or that there had been a disregard of legal obligations which would necessitate the intervention of the Court through mandamus.
The Court, while dismissing the petition, opined that the petition was not maintainable because the foundation necessary to support the issuance of mandamus was lacking.
[Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880, Decided on 23-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Ankit Shah, Advocate Avneesh Kumar Upadhyaya, Advocate Medha Tyagi, Advocate Kriti Jain, Advocate Tarun Arora
For Respondent — CGSC Mukul Singh, GP Seema Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
