The Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sanchit Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 10030/2024). The petitioner, Mr. Sanchit Gupta, an independent IT consultant in the pharmaceutical sector, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution against X Corp (formerly Twitter Inc.) and the Union of India. Mr. Gupta’s grievance stemmed from the suspension of his social media account on X Corp’s platform without prior notice, which he claimed violated principles of natural justice and his constitutional rights.
Key Legal Issues
The case raised several important legal questions:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Private Entities: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private entity like X Corp, which performs functions that could be considered public in nature.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Whether the suspension of Mr. Gupta’s account violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Public Function Doctrine: Whether X Corp, by providing a platform for public discourse, performs a public function and is thus subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Court’s Decision
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula. The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that X Corp does not perform a “public function” in the strict legal sense intended under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Observations of the Court
1. Nature of X Corp’s Functions: The Court noted that while X Corp provides a platform for public discourse, it operates as a private entity without specific governmental delegation or statutory obligations to perform public duties. Justice Narula observed, “The platform operates as a private entity under private law and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations.”
2. Public Function Doctrine: The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that for a writ to be maintainable against a private entity, the entity must perform functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by virtue of power vested by law. Justice Narula stated, “The function or service of providing a platform for communication or social interaction cannot be called a function similar to that of a governmental function or integral to state functions.”
3. Appropriate Legal Recourse: The Court suggested that Mr. Gupta’s grievances might be more appropriately addressed through a breach of contract claim in civil courts rather than a constitutional violation. “The proper venue for addressing such a breach would be the civil courts, where contractual disputes are adjudicated,” Justice Narula remarked.
Also Read
4. Mandamus Against Union of India: The Court also addressed the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus against the Union of India to enforce the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The Court found no concrete evidence of neglect of statutory duty by the Union of India that would necessitate such a writ.
