The Delhi High Court, chaired by Justice Sanjeev Narula, rendered a decision in a recent ruling in the matter of Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India and Others. A writ petition brought against X Corporation, formerly known as Twitter, was heard by the court.
Background of the Case
Sanchit Gupta challenged X Corporation’s suspension of his Twitter account by filing a writ suit under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Gupta, a professional who holds degrees in both law and IT, stated that he received no prior notification, explanation, or warning when his account was suspended. He was making use of the platform’s premium services, which included X Premium and X Premium Plus.
Gupta was notified in August 2023 that he would be entitled to a share of the advertising money collected by his account. But in June 2024, he became aware of a decline in the reach of his account.
He was notified by X Corporation on July 15, 2024, that his monetization had been suspended as a result of his account being suspended. Gupta filed the writ suit because he couldn’t get his account restored despite appealing several times.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Gupta contended that natural justice, equity, and fairness principles were violated by suspending his account. He said that the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), and 21 violated his fundamental rights.
He included the Union of India as a respondent as well, arguing that even in cases when private companies like X Corporation violate constitutional rights, the government has an obligation to preserve those rights because they are important to public conversation and communication.
Court’s Findings
The writ petition against X Corporation was deemed unmaintainable by Justice Sanjeev Narula. According to him, X Corporation is a private company that doesn’t carry out any public duties or functions. The judge underlined that although the platform is vital to the dissemination of information and the shaping of public opinion, it is user-driven and voluntary.
The court stated that the duties and tasks of the state are not equivalent to the kind of work carried out by X Corporation. Thus, it is not possible to classify the platform’s operations as public functions.
According to Justice Narula, it is necessary to show that a private entity’s actions are carrying out a public duty or function in order for a writ petition against it to be maintainable. This was not the case..
Conclusion
The court came to the conclusion that X Corporation is a private company that fulfills no obligations or duties on behalf of the government. As a result, the Indian Constitution’s Article 226 writ jurisdiction is inapplicable. The court advised Gupta to pursue his claim through civil litigation if he thought there had been a breach of contract or if his rights under X Corporation’s policy had been infringed.
As a result, the writ petition contesting the acts of X Corporation on the basis of the Constitution was rejected, and so were any outstanding petitions
