Delhi High Court Rules Writ Petitions Cannot Be Filed Against Social Media Platforms Like X

Delhi High Court Rules Writ Petitions Cannot Be Filed Against Social Media Platforms Like X

The Delhi High Court has ruled that writ petitions cannot be filed against social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), as they are private entities and not part of the state, nor do they perform government or public functions.

Justice Sajeev Narula acknowledged that while X plays a significant role in information dissemination and shaping public opinion, it remains a private platform. The court emphasized that X's primary function is to provide a space for expression, which, although it influences public discourse, operates privately and independently of government directives or obligations.

The court stated, “While ‘X’ plays a critical role in information dissemination and influencing public opinion, its core function is to provide a platform for expression—a service that has ‘public discourse’ as a consequence yet is private in operation. There is no directive, statutory or otherwise, from the government that delegates traditional state functions to ‘X’. The platform is not mandated to carry out public duties. ‘X’ is voluntary and user-driven, distinguishing it from entities that operate under a compulsion of law or provide services that are essential public utilities.”.

The observations were made in a writ petition filed by Sanchit Gupta challenging X's decision to suspend his account, alleging a breach of principles of natural justice, equity, and fairness. Gupta also named the Union of India as a party, arguing that the government has a duty to protect constitutional rights from infringement by private entities, particularly those like X that play a crucial role in public communication and discourse.

However, the court rejected these arguments, finding no evidence that the central government had neglected its regulatory responsibilities or that there had been any legal violations warranting the High Court's intervention.

The court concluded, “In light of the above, the present writ petition, in the opinion of the Court, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications.