Instagram Account Suspension Cannot Be Challenged Through Writ Petition, Civil Suit Is Proper Remedy: Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors.
| Particulars | Details |
| Case Name | Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors. |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Judge | Justice Amit Mahajan |
| Date of Order | 27 October 2026 |
| Key Legal Issue | Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against Meta for disabling an Instagram account. |
| Court’s Decision | A writ petition seeking restoration of an Instagram account is not maintainable against Meta in the circumstances of the case. The appropriate remedy is a civil suit. The Court also directed the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to decide the petitioner’s pending appeal expeditiously. |
The Delhi High Court has ruled that users whose Instagram accounts are suspended or disabled by Meta cannot ordinarily challenge such action through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Instead, the appropriate legal remedy against the company is to approach a civil court.
Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the ruling in Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors., observing that Meta Platforms, which operates Instagram, is a private entity and does not perform any public function or discharge a public duty.
Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.
The Court clarified that although Instagram has become an important platform for communication, information sharing and public discussion, its widespread influence does not automatically make it subject to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Contents
hide
What Was the Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors Case About?
The case arose after Instagram disabled the accounts of Sarthak Bhagat, allegedly without providing prior notice or an opportunity to explain his position.
According to the petitioner, Instagram informed him that his account had violated the platform’s community standards. However, he claimed that the company did not disclose the specific reasons for disabling his accounts.
Bhagat initially attempted to resolve the issue through Instagram’s internal review mechanism. Despite seeking reconsideration, his accounts were not restored.
Discover the latest legal jobs and career openings.
He subsequently approached the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), established under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The petitioner submitted that his appeal, filed on September 11, had remained undecided beyond the prescribed period of 30 days.
As a result, he approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the disabling of his Instagram accounts.
Why Did the Delhi High Court Reject the Writ Petition Against Meta?
The central legal question before the Court was whether Meta, despite being a private company, could be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and for other legal purposes.
Although writ jurisdiction can extend to private bodies in certain circumstances, the Court explained that such intervention generally requires the private entity to perform a public function or discharge a public duty relevant to the relief sought.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Meta does not satisfy these requirements merely because Instagram is widely used for communication and public discourse.
The Court noted that Instagram’s principal activity is to provide a digital platform where users can communicate, publish content and interact with others.
Explore LawBhoomi's free law library for students and lawyers.
While these activities may influence public opinion and facilitate the exchange of information, they do not amount to performing a governmental function.
The Court further observed that Meta operates its services voluntarily and is not carrying out any traditional State responsibility delegated by the government.
Consequently, the disabling of an Instagram account by Meta cannot ordinarily be challenged directly through a writ petition seeking restoration of the account.
Does Instagram’s Influence on Public Opinion Make It a Public Authority?
The High Court specifically addressed the argument concerning Instagram’s role in modern public communication.
The Court acknowledged that Instagram plays a significant role in distributing information and shaping public opinion.
However, it distinguished between a private service having substantial public influence and an organisation legally entrusted with a public duty.
According to the Court, public discussion and information sharing are consequences of Instagram’s commercial operations. They do not transform the company into a public authority.
The Court stated:
“The mere provision of a platform for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, constitute a governmental function or a function integral to the discharge of State responsibilities.”
The observation highlights an important distinction in constitutional law: a service may be extensively used by the public without necessarily becoming subject to the same constitutional obligations as a government authority.
Access subject-wise law notes for free on LawBhoomi.
Therefore, the popularity of Instagram and its importance in everyday communication were insufficient to establish that Meta performs a public function for the purpose of the petition.
Can the Central Government Be Directed to Take Action Against Meta?
Apart from seeking relief concerning his Instagram accounts, the petitioner also sought directions involving the Central government.
The High Court examined whether the government could be directed to ensure Meta’s compliance with the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
However, the Court declined to issue such directions.
It explained that a writ of mandamus, which directs a public authority to perform a legal duty, requires a clear demonstration that the authority has failed to discharge an obligation imposed by law.
In the present case, the Court found no sufficient basis to conclude that the Central government had neglected a statutory duty warranting the issuance of mandamus.
Accordingly, it refused to intervene against the government on that ground.
What Legal Remedy Is Available When Instagram Disables an Account?
The Delhi High Court clarified that a person aggrieved by Meta’s decision to disable an Instagram account may pursue an appropriate civil remedy.
A civil suit allows the affected individual to raise legal claims concerning the company’s actions before a competent civil court.
The availability and nature of relief would depend on the facts of the dispute and the legal rights established by the claimant.
Importantly, the judgment does not mean that Meta’s decisions to suspend or disable accounts are beyond legal scrutiny.
Rather, it establishes that the appropriate legal forum and procedure must be followed when challenging such decisions.
The Court distinguished between the availability of a legal remedy against a private company and the maintainability of a constitutional writ petition against that company.
What Did the Court Say About the Pending GAC Appeal?
Although the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition against Meta for restoration of the Instagram accounts, it granted limited relief concerning the petitioner’s pending appeal.
The Court noted that Bhagat had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
The GAC provides an appellate grievance-redressal mechanism for users dissatisfied with certain decisions made through the grievance process of social media intermediaries.
The petitioner maintained that his appeal had remained pending beyond the prescribed 30-day period.
Taking note of this grievance, the High Court directed the GAC to decide his appeal expeditiously.
Thus, while the Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction against Meta, it ensured that the petitioner’s pending statutory grievance-redressal process would be addressed.
Court’s Final Decision in Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors
In its order dated October 27, 2026, the Delhi High Court disposed of Sarthak Bhagat’s petition after holding that the disabling of an Instagram account by Meta must be challenged through an appropriate civil suit rather than a writ petition under Article 226.
The Court also declined to direct the Central government to ensure Meta’s compliance with the Information Technology Act and the 2021 Rules, finding no demonstrated failure to perform a statutory duty that justified mandamus.
However, it directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide the petitioner’s pending appeal expeditiously.
Join LawBhoomi’s 100K+ Community
