LinkedIn Does Not Perform Public Function; Account Restriction Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 3 November 2026

Case: Not provided in source
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Citation: Not provided in source
Statutes: Constitution of India — s.226
Source: LiveLaw

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Delhi High Court, in a decision by Justice Subramonium Prasad, held that LinkedIn does not perform a public function, and therefore, a challenge to account restriction cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is applicable only against the State or instrumentalities performing public functions.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A private entity that does not perform a public function cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. LinkedIn, being a private platform, does not perform a public function, and its internal decisions regarding account restrictions are not amenable to writ petitions.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should advise clients that disputes with private social media platforms like LinkedIn regarding account restrictions are generally not actionable through writ petitions. Litigants seeking redress for such issues may need to explore contractual remedies or other civil law avenues, rather than public law remedies.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to the State or entities performing public functions.
2LinkedIn is a private entity and does not perform a public function.
3Decisions by LinkedIn regarding account restrictions are not subject to writ petitions.

The Legal Issue The Delhi High Court addressed whether a writ petition could be maintained against LinkedIn for restricting a user's account. The core legal question was whether LinkedIn, a private social media platform, performs a 'public function' that would bring it within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby allowing its actions to be challenged under writ jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court ruled that LinkedIn does not perform a public function. The court clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is specifically designed for enforcement against the 'State' or 'instrumentalities of the State' that are performing public functions. Since LinkedIn is a private entity and its operations, including account management and restrictions, do not constitute a public function, its decisions cannot be challenged through a writ petition. The court observed that allowing such petitions against private platforms would unduly expand the scope of writ jurisdiction beyond its intended purpose.

What Follows As a result of this judgment, individuals seeking to challenge account restrictions or other internal decisions by private social media platforms like LinkedIn will generally be unable to do so through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Litigants will need to explore alternative legal avenues, such as contractual remedies or civil suits, to address their grievances against such private entities.