Instagram Account Block Must Be Challenged by Civil Suit, Not Writ Petition, Rules Delhi High Court

Instagram Account Block Must Be Challenged by Civil Suit, Not Writ Petition, Rules Delhi High Court in Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India

Case: Sarthak Bhagat v. Union of India and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2026
Court: Delhi High Court
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan

Court Observation

“Respondent No. 3 is neither obligated to provide such a platform in discharge of a public duty nor legally compelled to offer its services, which are voluntary and user-driven.”

Summary

The Delhi High Court has held that Meta Platforms India, which operates Instagram, cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because its platform plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion. A writ petition seeking restoration of a disabled Instagram account is therefore not maintainable against Meta; the remedy lies in a civil suit, in which damages may also be claimed.

The Court was dealing with a petition by Sarthak Bhagat, who challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. It also declined a writ of mandamus against the Union of India, finding no established failure to discharge a statutory duty, but directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide Bhagat’s pending appeal expeditiously, and disposed of the petition.

Key Holdings

  • The mere provision of a social media platform for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, constitute a governmental function or a public duty.
  • Instagram’s primary function is to provide a platform for expression; public discourse is a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty, and Meta’s operations remain private in nature.
  • Since Meta does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
  • A writ of mandamus cannot issue against the Union of India without a concrete, established failure to discharge a statutory duty.

Directions Issued

  • The Grievance Appellate Committee must decide the petitioner’s pending appeal expeditiously.

Background

Bhagat contended that his Instagram accounts were disabled for allegedly violating Instagram’s Community Standards, without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. He sought a review through Instagram’s in-app mechanism, but his accounts were not restored and no specific reasons were provided. He then filed an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee on 11 September 2026 under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which remained undecided beyond the prescribed 30-day period.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,