Case at a Glance
A LinkedIn user whose account was restricted without warning, without being told which policy he had breached, and who received only template replies to his appeals, filed a writ petition against LinkedIn and its grievance officer. The Delhi High Court held that LinkedIn’s primary function is to provide a platform for expression, its operations are private, no State function has been delegated to it and its services are voluntary, so neither LinkedIn nor its grievance officer is amenable to Article 226. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, the Court observing that a civil suit appeared the more appropriate remedy and noting the user’s pending appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee.
The petitioner said LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited restricted his account without prior warning, without identifying any provision of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies that he had violated, and without describing the conduct involved. Despite repeated representations, appeals and requests for manual review, he received template replies referring to the “number and/or severity” of unspecified violations, and a restriction first described as temporary continued indefinitely.
He filed a writ petition naming the Union of India as Respondent No. 1, LinkedIn as Respondent No. 2 and its resident grievance officer as Respondent No. 3. He had also appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the IT Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2021, as the judgment records.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable against LinkedIn and its grievance officer for restricting a user’s account?
The Public Function Test and a Private Professional Network
The Court first noted that no specific prayer was directed against the Union of India, so the petition was in substance against LinkedIn and its grievance officer, and that the petitioner had “failed to persuade this Court as to how a writ petition is maintainable against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.” It explained that a writ can lie against a private body only when it performs a public function: the action must involve a public duty or function, public interest or a State obligation, and be integral to State functions or rest on power vested by law.
Applying that test, and relying on Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India, (2024) 07 DEL CK 2764, the Court held that LinkedIn’s “primary function is to provide a platform for expression”, that its operations are private, that no governmental mandate delegates a State function to it and that its services are voluntary. Its grievance officer likewise performs no public function. The Court observed that “The petitioner’s legal recourse appears more appropriate for a civil suit” and noted that his appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee was pending.
What the Court Actually Held
- A writ against a private entity lies only if it performs a public function or duty integral to State functions or based on power vested by law.
- LinkedIn provides a voluntary, privately run platform for expression and performs no public function, so it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- LinkedIn’s grievance officer also does not perform a public function.
- The petition was dismissed as not maintainable; a civil suit appeared the more appropriate remedy, and the appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee was noted as pending.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Account suspensions and restrictions on social and professional platforms are common, and users often rush to the High Court; this ruling clarifies the limits of that route.
- It applies the public-function test to a professional networking platform, following the Delhi High Court’s earlier view in Sanchit Gupta.
- It points users to the Grievance Appellate Committee mechanism and civil remedies instead.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Platform Users
- Use the platform’s grievance officer and then the Grievance Appellate Committee under the IT Rules.
- A writ petition against a private platform alone is unlikely to be entertained.
- Contractual and damages claims can be pursued through a civil suit.
For Counsel
- Frame a specific prayer against a State respondent if a public-law remedy is sought.
- Assess the public-function test carefully before filing a writ against an intermediary.
- Keep a record of the platform’s template responses for civil or GAC proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- LinkedIn is not amenable to Article 226 writ jurisdiction.
- Providing a platform for expression is not a public function.
- Grievance officer also outside writ jurisdiction.
- Remedy: Grievance Appellate Committee or civil suit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a writ petition if LinkedIn restricts my account?
According to this judgment, a writ petition against LinkedIn or its grievance officer is not maintainable, because they do not perform a public function under the test applied by the Court.
What remedies are available instead?
The Court noted the petitioner’s pending appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee under the IT Rules and observed that a civil suit appeared the more appropriate remedy.
Why was the Union of India’s presence not enough?
Because the petition contained no specific prayer against the Union of India; the grievance was entirely against LinkedIn and its grievance officer.
Conclusion
The decision keeps writ jurisdiction focused on public power: however frustrating an unexplained account restriction may be, a voluntary private platform answers through the IT Rules’ grievance mechanism and ordinary civil law, not Article 226.
Practical takeaway: Before approaching the High Court over a platform’s action, exhaust the grievance officer and Grievance Appellate Committee route, and consider a civil suit for contractual or damages claims.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com