Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Writ Petition Challenging Suspension of Social Media Account: A Case Study in Indian Law, Assignments of Constitutional Law

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College Of LawConstitutional Law

This legal document presents a writ petition filed in india challenging the suspension of a social media account on the x platform (formerly twitter). The petitioner argues that the suspension violated principles of natural justice, equity, and fairness, and infringed upon his freedom of speech and expression. The legal arguments surrounding the case, including the application of the information technology act, 2000, and the concept of 'public function' in relation to social media platforms.

Typology: Assignments

2024/2025

Uploaded on 09/14/2024

div-singh-2
div-singh-2 🇮🇳

1 document

1 / 9

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
W.P.(C) 10030/2024 Page 1 of 9
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2024.
+ W.P.(C) 10030/2024, CM APPLs. 41028-41029/2024
SANCHIT GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Shah, Mr. Avneesh Kumar
Upadhyaya, Ms. Megha Tyagi,
Mr. Kriti Jain and Mr. Tarun Arora,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Ms. Seema Singh, GP for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. Mr. Sanchit Gupta, a professional with degrees in both Technology
and Law, is engaged as an independent IT Consultant in the pharmaceutical
sector. He has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950
1
, against Respondent No. 2, X Corp. (formerly
known as Twitter Inc.), following suspension of his social media account,
alleging a breach of the principles of natural justice, equity and fairness.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Mr. Gupta created an account on X platform with the username
‘@sanchit gs’ and subsequently subscribed to various premium services
offered by the Respondent, including the X Premium and X Premium Plus
1
“the Constitution”
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:02.08.2024
18:01:44
Signature Not Verified
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9

Partial preview of the text

Download Writ Petition Challenging Suspension of Social Media Account: A Case Study in Indian Law and more Assignments Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 23rd^ July, 2024.

  • W.P.(C) 10030/2024, CM APPLs. 41028-41029/ SANCHIT GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Shah, Mr. Avneesh Kumar Upadhyaya, Ms. Megha Tyagi, Mr. Kriti Jain and Mr. Tarun Arora, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Seema Singh, GP for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
  1. Mr. Sanchit Gupta, a professional with degrees in both Technology and Law, is engaged as an independent IT Consultant in the pharmaceutical sector. He has filed the present writ petition under Article 2 2 6 of the Constitution of India, 1950^1 , against Respondent No. 2, X Corp. (formerly known as Twitter Inc.), following suspension of his social media account, alleging a breach of the principles of natural justice, equity and fairness. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
  2. Mr. Gupta created an account on X platform with the username ‘@sanchit gs’ and subsequently subscribed to various premium services offered by the Respondent, including the X Premium and X Premium Plus (^1) “the Constitution”

services. In August 2023, Mr. Gupta was informed via email by X Corp that he was eligible to receive a portion of the advertising revenue generated through his account. He began receiving payments as part of this revenue- sharing arrangement since September 2023 till his account was suspended. However, in June 2024, Mr. Gupta observed a reduction in the reach of his account and a stagnation in follower growth, raising concerns about potential shadow banning or other restrictive actions being applied to his account without his knowledge. The situation escalated on 15 th July 2024, when Mr. Gupta received notification from X Corp that his account’s monetization was paused due to suspension of his account, with no prior show cause notice, intimation or warning. This action by X Corp prompted Mr. Gupta to file multiple appeals to restore his account, none of which according to him have been acknowledged or resolved by the platform.

  1. The Petition arrays two respondents: Respondent No. 1, the Union of India, represented herein through the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and Respondent No. 2, X Corp., previously known as Twitter, Inc - a social media platform and micro-blogging service that distributes short messages.
  2. The grievance of the Petitioner is spelt out in the petition as follows: “d. Petitioner created his Account on the social media platform of Respondent No. 2 i.e., X Corp. (Formerly known as TWITTER INC.) with username '@sanchit_gs' in May 2021. e. The Petitioner received an E-Mail on 12 .08. 2023 from the Respondent No. 2 that he was eligible to receive a portion of ads revenue generated by Respondent No. 2 on his account. Thereafter, he started receiving money as part of the monetization scheme of Respondent No. 2 from September 2023 regularly till the Account was suspended. f. That the Petitioner had purchased X Premium Subscription from Respondent No. 2 on 18.01.2023 for the first time which was valid for one year. The Petitioner further renewed his X Premium Subscription from Respondent No. 2 which was valid for one year and paid $89.04 on

towards Respondent No. 2.

  1. Furthermore, the relevant grounds urged in the present petition are as follows: “B. The action of Respondent No. 2 further violates he freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution, the Rights to assembly and association guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. It also violates the Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. C. The petitioner has suffered huge mental agony, loss of business and loss of reputation due to the illegal and arbitrary suspension of his Account by Respondent No. 2. The other members who are opposed to the ideology of the Petitioner on the platform of Respondent No. 2 have been making merry, abusing and humiliating the Petitioner on account of the suspension of the Petitioner's Account. The Petitioner is not able to respond to the online abuse by other members and is unable to defend himself due to the illegal and arbitrary suspension of his Account D. This Petition raises important questions regarding the nature, scope and applicability of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. Specifically, it raises the issue of whether large multinational corporations, discharging a public function by serving millions of users (and making a profit out of them), are amenable to constitutional scrutiny for their actions. E. The Writ Petition is maintainable against Respondent No. 2 as it discharges a public function. The suspension of the Petitioner's Account is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Respondent No. 2's terms of use and rules. The suspension of the Petitioner's account violates his right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and the Rights to assembly and association guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. There exists a positive obligation on Respondent No. 1 to ensure that rights guaranteed under the Constitution are not violated by private entities such as Respondent No. 2. F. The Petitioner filed several appeals for restoration of his account on the platform of Respondent No. 2 but the same has not been either acknowledged or resolved till the filing of this petition.

G. Respondent No. 2 performs s "Public Function" and is bound by section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.”

  1. Thus, as can be seen from the pleadings, all allegations are against a private Respondent- X Corp. Nonetheless, the Petitioner has included the Union of India as a Respondent to anchor the writ petition within the constitutional framework. The involvement of the Union of India is premised on the assertion that it has the responsibility to ensure that constitutional rights are not infringed upon by private entities, especially those that play a significant role in public communication and discourse, such as X Corp. These assertions are spelt out as follows: “The Writ Petition is maintainable against Respondent No. 2 as it discharges a public function. The suspension of the Petitioner's Account is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Respondent No. 2's terms of use and rules. The suspension of the Petitioner's account violates his right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and the Rights to assembly and association guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. There exists a positive obligation on Respondent No. 1 to ensure that rights guaranteed under the Constitution are not violated by private entities such as Respondent No. 2.”
  2. The Petitioner contends that Respondent No. 2, X Corp, is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it performs a ‘public function’ by facilitating public discourse through its social media platform.
  3. The concept of a ‘Public function’ under Article 226 of the Constitution plays a crucial role in determining the maintainability of a writ petition against private entities or non-state actors. The Supreme Court has through various judgements held that a writ under Article 226 of Constitution is maintainable against any person or entity, including private

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 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 Supreme Court’s judgments involving non-state actors like private schools are illustrative. These entities have been considered amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when performing functions like education^4 due to the public nature of these services and often due to specific regulatory frameworks governing their operations. In contrast, the function of ‘X’ as a communication platform, does not align with these precedents as it lacks statutory compulsion. Furthermore, 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.

  1. 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 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 (^4) St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498. See also: Bharat Mata Saraswati Bal Mandir Senior Secondary School vs. Vinita Singh and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3934

currently interpreted by jurisprudence on this issue.

  1. In the Court’s opinion, Petitioner’s legal recourse appears 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. 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.
  2. As against, Respondents No. 1, the relief sought in the present petition is as follows: “a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) thereby directing Respondent No. 1 to strictly enforce the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 on the Respondent No. 2.”
  3. The Petitioner seeks to enforce the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The essence of the relief is to compel regulatory oversight by the government to regulate the activities of digital entities like X Corp to protect public interests and uphold digital ethics. However, the issuance of a writ of mandamus requires a clear demonstration that there has been a neglect of statutory duty by Respondent No. 1. Mandamus is an extraordinary judicial remedy, utilized specifically to compel a public official or agency to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to perform and have failed to do. The petition must provide concrete evidence of this neglect, which, based on the details provided, is