Case at a glance: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of a media company's suspended Gmail account. It held that providing email is a commercial activity with many competitors, not a public function, so a writ under Article 226 does not lie against Google. “The decisive consideration... is the nature of the function and not merely the size or reach of the entity.”
The petitioners run a news media business, including a YouTube channel. In July 2026 third parties allegedly accessed the company's Gmail account, and Google disabled it for unusual activity. Google Support did not respond and a cyber police complaint did not restore access.
They sought a writ directing Google to verify their recovery credentials and restore access, relying on the IT Act, the 2021 Intermediary Rules and a recent Delhi High Court ruling.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a writ maintainable against Google for suspension of an email account?
Nature of the Function, Not Size
The Court accepted that a writ can lie against a private body performing a public function, which per G. Bassi Reddy v. ICRISAT means functions similar to those of the State in its sovereign capacity. Providing email is commercial, many providers exist, and Google has no monopoly, so providing or suspending an account “without more” is not a public function.
Wide use of the service or its importance to the petitioners did not change this, and intermediary grievance-redressal duties do not convert account disputes into public functions. A recent ruling on de-indexing judicial records was distinguished as concerning informational privacy.
What the Court Actually Held
- The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
- The petitioners are free to pursue other remedies in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It limits writ jurisdiction over big tech account disputes.
- It focuses on the nature of the function, not the platform's size.
- It points users towards contractual and civil remedies.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Users and Businesses
- Use the platform's grievance mechanisms and civil or consumer remedies for account disputes.
- Keep recovery credentials and two-factor authentication updated.
For Counsel
- Frame writ petitions against platforms around a genuine public function, if any.
Key Takeaways
- Email services are not a public function.
- Writs don't lie against Google for account suspension.
- Size or reach of a platform isn't decisive.
- Other legal remedies remain open.
Frequently Asked Questions
According to this ruling, no; the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Pursue other remedies in law, such as civil or consumer proceedings and the platform's grievance process.
No. The Court held it does not turn account disputes into public functions.
Conclusion
The ruling draws a firm line between public functions and commercial services offered by large platforms.
Practical takeaway: For account suspensions, choose contractual, civil or consumer remedies rather than a writ.