Image credits - Swarajya
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that ‘X’ Corp, previously known as Twitter, does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty, and is therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This ruling clarifies the limits of judicial review for private entities engaged in digital and social media platforms.
Justice Sanjeev Narula delivered the judgment while dismissing a plea filed by Sanchit Gupta, a professional with qualifications in both Technology and Law. Gupta had challenged the suspension of his account on ‘X’ Corp, alleging that the suspension and subsequent pause on monetization were carried out without prior notice or warning, and thus violated principles of natural justice, equity, and fairness.
Gupta argued that ‘X’ Corp, by facilitating public discourse through its platform, should be considered a public entity subject to writ jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed, stating that ‘X’ Corp operates as a private entity under private law and does not engage in any governmental duties or obligations. Despite its role in public discourse and impact on public opinion, the court found that ‘X’ Corp does not meet the criteria of performing a ‘public function’ in the legal sense required for writ jurisdiction.
The court concluded that Gupta’s issue would be more appropriately addressed as a breach of contract rather than a constitutional violation. It advised that disputes of this nature should be resolved in civil courts, which are equipped to handle contractual disagreements.
This decision underscores the court’s interpretation of Article 226, reinforcing that private entities, even those with significant public influence, are not subject to writ jurisdiction unless explicitly performing governmental functions. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving digital platforms and their legal responsibilities.