'X' Corp Does Not Perform 'Public Function', Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that X Corp, formerly Twitter, does not perform “public function” or discharges public duty and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the social media platform operates as a “private entity” under “private law” and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations.

“…the function or service of providing a platform for communication or social interaction cannot be called be a function similar to that of a governmental function or integral to state functions. Thus, it cannot be said that X Corp performs a public function or discharges a public duty,” the court said.

Justice Narula made the observations while dismissing the plea filed by one Sanchit Gupta, a professional with degrees in both Technology and Law, against suspension of his account on X Corp. He alleged that there was a breach of principles of natural justice, equity and fairness.

He contended that he received notification from X Corp that his account's monetization was paused due to suspension of his account. According to him, this was done without any prior show cause notice, intimation or warning.

It was his case that X Corp is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it performs a 'public function' by facilitating public discourse through its social media platform.

Rejecting the plea, the court said that X Corp., which provides a digital platform for communication and social interaction and serves as a medium for public discourse, is a privately owned entity that operates without specific governmental delegation or statutory obligations to perform any public duty.

“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 consequence, yet is private in operation. There is no directive, statutory or otherwise, from the government that delegates traditional state functions to 'X',” the court said.

It added that the social media platform is not mandated to carry out public duties, observing that X Corp is voluntary and user-driven, distinguishing it from entities that operate under a compulsion of law or provide services that are essential public utilities.

“In conclusion, despite its significant role in public discourse and the potential impact on public opinion and democratic engagement, 'X' does not perform a 'public function' in the strict legal sense intended under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the Court said.

It added that the platform operates as a private entity under private law and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations. Therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as currently interpreted by jurisprudence on this issue.

The court observed that Gupta's legal recourse appeared more appropriate for a claim breach of contract rather than a constitutional violation. The proper venue for addressing such a breach would be the civil courts, where contractual disputes are adjudicated, it said.

“If the Petitioner believes that his rights under the policy of X Corp have been violated, pursuing this claim through civil litigation is advised, as the remedy for breach of contract lies therein. Thus, the writ petition challenging such actions on constitutional grounds is not maintainable,” Justice Narula said.

Title: SANCHIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 875

Click here to read order