Factual Background:
Sanchit Gupta, an IT Consultant, had his social media account suspended by X Corp. without prior notice or explanation. This suspension led to a loss of advertising revenue and alleged shadow banning, prompting Gupta to file a writ petition alleging a breach of natural justice, equity, and fairness.

Issues Raised:

• The petitioner argues that the suspension of his account by X Corp. violates his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including freedom of speech and expression, assembly, and association.
• Gupta claims that X Corp. performs a 'public function' and is thus amenable to constitutional scrutiny, despite being a private entity.
• The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Union of India to enforce the Information Technology Act, 2000, and related rules against X Corp.

Judgment:
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the writ petition, stating that the allegations are primarily against a private entity, X Corp., and that the petitioner's recourse should be through civil litigation for breach of contract rather than constitutional violation. The court found that X Corp. does not perform a 'public function' as defined under Article 226, and thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. The court also noted that there was no evidence of neglect or failure to act by the Union of India to justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the proper legal recourse for the petitioner would be through civil courts for contractual disputes. The judgment underscores the distinction between private entities' actions and constitutional violations, and the limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for private entities not performing 'public functions'.

Case Citation: Sachit Gupta Vs Union of India: 23.07.2024 : 2024:W.P.(C) 10030/2024: DHC:5723: Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula: H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539