The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the restrictions on a man’s LinkedIn account, observing that the social media platform does not perform a public function and, therefore, cannot be subjected to the high court’s writ jurisdiction.Justice Amit Mahajan, on November 2, stated that providing a social interaction platform does not make a private entity perform a public duty. “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 court said, adding that the plea was not maintainable.The petitioner had approached the high court alleging that LinkedIn restricted his account without prior warning or disclosing which provision of its User Agreement or Professional Community Policies he had violated.He told the court that despite repeated requests for a manual review, the social media platform continued to issue template-based responses citing the “number and/or severity” of unspecified violations, without furnishing any supporting material. Although the restriction was initially said to be temporary, it continued indefinitely, he added.At the outset, the court noted that the reliefs sought by the petitioner were directed against LinkedIn Technology Information Private Ltd and its resident grievance officer, both private entities. Although the Union government had also been impleaded, no specific relief or direction had been sought against it. Justice Amit Mahajan said a private entity can be brought under writ jurisdiction only if it undertakes functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature.The court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 (empowers high court to issue directions to any person or authority within its jurisdiction) can be maintained against any person or entity, including private bodies, if they perform functions that can be considered ‘public functions’.Also Read | Man cites wife’s LinkedIn profile to avoid maintenance, Bengaluru court rejects it“For a writ to be maintainable against a private entity under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must be demonstrated that the action or conduct of the entity must be in the performance of a public duty or function; the nature of the activity should involve a public interest or be linked to a state obligation; and the function performed by the entity should be integral to state functions or be undertaken by virtue of some power vested by law,” it said.Story continues below this adThe court observed that a private entity can be brought under writ jurisdiction only if it undertakes functions that are fundamentally governmental in nature or are performed by the power vested by law.It noted that while LinkedIn plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, its primary function is to provide a platform for expression, with public discourse being a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty.“Its operations remain private in nature, and no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to it. Respondent No. 2 (LinkedIn) is neither obligated to provide such a platform in discharge of a public duty nor legally compelled to offer its services, which are voluntary and user-driven,” the high court added.Also Read | ‘Not favour’: Judges entitled to retirement dues despite transfer, rules Orissa High CourtThe court said it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to file a civil suit, in which he could seek damages. It also noted that the petitioner had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against the restriction.Story continues below this adNoting that LinkedIn and its grievance officer could not be challenged through a writ petition, the court dismissed the plea as not maintainable.