LinkedIn Account Restriction Cannot Be Challenged in a Writ Petition, Rules Delhi High Court

LinkedIn Account Restriction Cannot Be Challenged in a Writ Petition, Rules Delhi High Court in Mayank Jain v. Union of India

Case: Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2026:DHC:9777
Date of Judgment: 02 November 2026
Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan
Proceedings: W.P.(C) 16207/2026

Court Observation

“Thus, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s legal recourse appears more appropriate for a civil suit, where the petitioner could claim damages, if any.”

Summary

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the restriction of a user’s LinkedIn account, holding that LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited and its resident grievance officer do not perform a public function or discharge a public duty and are therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court held 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. Merely providing a platform for communication and social interaction does not amount to performing a governmental function or a function integral to the discharge of State responsibilities. A civil suit, in which damages can be claimed, is the more appropriate remedy.

Key Holdings

  • A writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained against a private entity only if it performs functions that can be characterised as public functions.
  • Providing a platform for communication and social interaction is a private activity, not a governmental function or a function integral to the discharge of State responsibilities.
  • LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on the facts of this case.
  • A user aggrieved by restriction of an account on such a platform should pursue a civil suit, where damages, if any, can be claimed.

Background

The petitioner, Mayank Jain, alleged that LinkedIn had restricted his account without prior warning and without disclosing the specific provisions of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that he had allegedly violated, or identifying the activity or conduct behind the restriction. He had already preferred an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee under Section 3A(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, concerning the grievance. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

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: , ,