On 8 October 2026, Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by Janta Live Press Network, a YouTube-based media company that wanted its disabled Gmail account restored. The petitioners said third parties accessed the account without authorisation on 20 July 2026 and that Google then disabled it citing "unusual activity". They also said they emailed Google Support, filed a complaint with the Cyber Police Station, and received no response from Google (as reported by MediaNama).
The court called the grievance "undisputedly serious" but held that a writ could not grant the relief. The ruling is correct on the law. It also exposes a gap in India's platform accountability framework that the court could not fill.
The strongest case for the petitioners
The case for treating Gmail differently is not frivolous. For a small media outlet, an email account is the root of its digital identity. It holds password-reset links, YouTube and banking logins, and source correspondence. Losing it without explanation or a working appeal can end a business, and a user who is a victim of account takeover is being punished for someone else's wrongdoing. Market dominance also matters: if one private company can effectively decide who participates in digital life, the argument goes, constitutional accountability should follow.
What the court actually held
Article 226 lets High Courts issue writs against private bodies only where they perform a "public function". According to MediaNama's report, the court said the term is not categorically defined, but may cover functions similar to those of the State in its sovereign capacity. Examples are a function the State has outsourced, or a service so closely tied to State obligations that it is necessary for public welfare.
Applying that test, Justice Mahajan held that Google's provision of email is "a commercial activity undertaken by private entities". Suspending an account on security grounds, without more, is not a public function or duty. Three further points stand out:
- The petitioners' business dependence on the account did not change the nature of Google's function.
- The IT Rules, 2021 impose grievance-redressal and intermediary-compliance obligations, but these do not automatically make account restrictions, security incidents or support failures amenable to writ jurisdiction.
- Email is offered by many independent providers and is not monopolised by Google. Widespread use does not make a function public. The decisive factor is the nature of the function, not the size of the company.
The petitioners were left at liberty to pursue other legal remedies. The order is five pages.
Why the narrow reading protects innovation and speech
The judgment is consistent with academic commentary on the same doctrine. A 2021 analysis of the WhatsApp privacy petition noted that the Supreme Court's BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) finding of a public function turned on the board's near-exclusive control over Indian cricket, not just its scale. It concluded that a messaging app facing competitors would struggle to meet that bar (CLS NLUO).
The alternative has real costs. If scale alone made a private service a State-like actor, every large platform would owe constitutional due process to its users. Courts would be drawn into reviewing individual moderation and security decisions, and the logic would reach every successful Indian start-up. Security teams that suspend accounts quickly to stop takeovers and fraud would face litigation for acting fast. For a pro-innovation, pro-speech position, the sounder route is a clear statutory duty, not a doctrinal stretch that treats private companies as arms of the State.
The remedy the court pointed to is the weak link
The order's implicit message is that users should use the statutory grievance route. The IT Rules, 2021 provide one: a Grievance Officer who must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days under Rule 3(2), and a Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) under Rule 3A that should "endeavour" to resolve appeals within 30 calendar days. The rule text is on MeitY's site.
The timelines are only as good as their enforcement. In Subodh v. Union of India (WP(C) 6869/2026), a content creator with a permanently banned Instagram account received no reply from the Grievance Officer. His GAC appeal, filed on 13 March 2026, was still "under process" on 14 May 2026, more than 63 days later. On 18 May 2026 the Delhi High Court directed the GAC to decide within 30 days, as Internet Freedom Foundation reports.
The two cases fit together. In Janta Live the court declined to act as a first-instance account-recovery forum. In Subodh it enforced the administrative process the Rules created. This is a sensible division of labour, but only if the process delivers. A takeover victim facing a locked mailbox needs a decision in days, and a 30-day "endeavour" is not that.
What proportionate reform looks like
Three measures would help without turning platforms into State actors:
- A fast lane for security lockouts. A short, enforceable timeline for human review of account recovery after a suspected takeover, separate from content-moderation appeals.
- Published reasons and escalation. A plain statement of why an account was disabled where security does not forbid it, and a named contact for escalation.
- GAC performance reporting. MeitY should publish how many appeals the committees receive and how long they take, so that missed deadlines are visible before they reach a High Court.
These are targeted duties tied to a specific harm, which is the proportionality principle. They would give users a remedy that court dockets cannot.
The Delhi High Court has drawn the constitutional line where doctrine says it should be. The next step belongs to the executive: making the grievance machinery that the court leaned on fast enough to matter.