Instagram Account Suspension: Delhi HC Says Providing Social Media Platform Does Not Amount to Public Duty

October 29, 2026

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has said that the mere provision of a social media platform for interaction does not constitute a public duty. It added that since Instagram plays a major role in dissemination of information and influencing public opinion, Meta Platforms India cannot be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Sarthak Bhagat over the disablement of his Instagram accounts.

The court said in its order dated October 27 that Instagram does not have any public function as its main role is to provide expression. Public discussion is a result of activities on Instagram.

“Respondent No. 3 is under no obligation to provide this platform as a public duty and there is no legal requirement on the part of the Respondent No. 3 to provide these services as they are provided at their discretion.”

Meta’s Activities are Private

The court said that Meta Platforms’ activities are private and there is no mandate from the government to delegate any conventional State functions to them.

It said Meta Platforms India is not involved in any public function or public duty and thus cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It further said that Bhagat’s legal recourse in this case seems more suited to be dealt with in a civil suit where he can claim any damages.

Instagram Accounts Disabled

The petitioner approached the court after his Instagram accounts were disabled. He had been notified that his accounts had allegedly breached Instagram’s Community Standards and would be permanently removed. It said that he cannot request for a re-evaluation.

The petitioner said that he had requested for a re-evaluation using the in-app feature provided by Instagram, however his accounts were not reinstated. He also did not receive particular reasons for why his accounts had been disabled.

He had also filed an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee on September 11, 2026 under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. However he said that his appeal was outstanding as the 30-day period set by the rules had passed.

Appeal Should Be Decided by Grievance Appellate Committee

The High Court said that no clear evidence had been presented that the Union of India had failed to perform any duty under statute.

The court said that a writ of mandamus can be issued to force a public authority to perform a duty that they are required to do by law.

The court said that no concrete evidence had been shown that the government had failed to perform any statutory duties. Therefore there was no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

However, the court said that there had been some delay in coming to a decision on Bhagat’s appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee and ordered that the appeal be decided as soon as possible. The High Court disposed of the petition and applications.