Case Name: Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16207/2026
CNR Number: DLHC010527412026
Date: Monday, 2 November 2026
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench / Quorum: Single-Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan.
FACTS :
The petitioner in the case of Mayank Jain v. Union Of India & Ors., approached the Delhi High Court because the LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited suspended his LinkedIn account without any prior notice or proper information. He also contended that LinkedIn failed to inform him of the specific clause of their User Agreement and Professional Community Policies which he is alleged to have breached and also what activity led to the suspension. Despite numerous complaints, appeals and requests for manual review, the petitioner was given the same generic response that his account had been suspended due to “number and/or severity”. No further evidence or information was provided by LinkedIn. This was also stated to be a temporary suspension, however it has been an ongoing issue. Mayank Jain then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Delhi High Court. The Union Of India, LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited and their Resident Grievance Officer were named as respondents. However, the Court observed that no specific relief was sought from the Union Of India. It was noted that the petitioner has already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
LEGAL QUESTIONS :
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private entity like LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited?
2.Whether LinkedIn, by offering a platform for professional communication, networking and the dissemination of information, can be considered to be performing a public function or discharging a public duty?
3.Whether a private digital platform and its Resident Grievance Officer can be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether the petitioner should approach the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021 or file a civil suit for alternative remedies?
RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER LAW:
- Article 226 – Constitution of India- Empowers High Courts to issue writs against authorities, persons or private bodies performing public functions or discharging public duties.
- 3A(3) Rule – Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021- Establishes an appellate mechanism in the form of the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) for users who are not satisfied with the grievance redressal decisions of the intermediaries.
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS (MAYANK JAIN)
The petitioner argues that LinkedIn wrongfully blocked his account with no warning whatsoever, or stating what sections of the User Agreement or Professional Community Policies he had breached. He had made several representations and appeals for a manual review, but was receiving the same automated response about the number and nature of unspecified violations. The petitioner felt that no justification or material was provided to substantiate their decision. Furthermore, even though the block was mentioned as temporary in the beginning, it persisted for an indefinite period, leading him to approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
RESPONDENT :
The decision does not clearly indicate any arguments put forward by the respondents. The court’s arguments are quite clear that the LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited is a private entity that primarily serves to provide a platform for professional communications and interactions. “The court said: “While the entity LinkedIn is of great importance for the dissemination of information and formation of opinions, it does not necessarily follow that it is performing a public function or discharging any public duty. The court also pointed out that LinkedIn has not been assigned any governmental activity and was not legally bound to offer its service as part of State duties. The court further noted that the petitioner had approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the IT Rules, 2021.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:
The decision in this case of Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors. has raised an interesting constitutional principle. The most interesting point taken from this case is that LinkedIn plays a large part in professional networking but the importance of a platform to society does not mean they are performing a public duty or that their private commercial activities are governmental. This was clear from the Court’s judgment. A platform like LinkedIn, does not just provide a space for communication, therefore IT will not fall under writ jurisdiction.
This also shows that although Article 226 is broader than Article 32, IT cannot be applied to every private organisation just because their actions have negatively impacted someone. Whether the organisation is performing a governmental function, is related to obligations the State has and whether they have any power given to them by law should be considered. An interesting aspect of this case is also the accountability of digital platforms. The petitioner has claimed that LinkedIn blocked their account, without giving any details as to why they had breached any rules or even giving a reason. This raises some concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process. But the court did not consider whether this was lawful because the issue was whether LinkedIn could be subject to writ jurisdiction. The Court also recognised that there were other remedies available. As the petitioner had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the IT Rules, 2021. The Court also suggested that if the petitioner wanted to pursue damages then a civil claim would be a more suitable remedy. This means that there is no bar to seeking legal remedy, even if a writ petition is dismissed. There’s a right way to do it.
JUDGMENT:
The Delhi High Court held that LinkedIn Technology Information Private Limited and the Resident Grievance Officer thereof were not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as LinkedIn does not perform a governmental function. The Court noted mere provision of a forum for communication and professional networking does not come under the exercise of a governmental function. Alternative remedies, such as a court suit and the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the IT Rules, 2021, were mentioned in the case. Therefore, the petition was declared to be non-maintainable.
CONCLUSION:
This case demonstrates that there is a difference between public interest and governmental functions. It shows that a private digital platform cannot be brought under the constitutional writ jurisdiction only because it affects public means of communication. However, the issue of legality of the grievance of the petitioner regarding a lack of transparency while restricting accounts on LinkedIn remained unresolved.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
Written by – Krittika Sengupta
