Delhi HC: Blocking Gmail Account is Not Performance of Public Function
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea to restore a blocked Gmail account, stating Google's email services are a commercial activity, not a public function.
NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the restoration of a disabled Gmail account, ruling that Google's provision of email services constitutes a commercial activity by a private entity and does not amount to performing a "public function."
The case involved Janta Live Press Network, a media company, whose Gmail account was disabled by Google citing "unusual activity" after alleged unauthorized access. The petitioners sought a court order directing Google to restore their account, arguing it was integral to their media business. They claimed to have received no response from Google Support and had also filed a complaint with the cyber police station.
While the court acknowledged the grievance as "undisputedly serious," Justice Amit Mahajan stated the core issue was not the validity of the grievance, but whether the relief sought could be granted through a writ petition. Such writs, under Article 226 of the Constitution, are typically issued against entities performing public functions, defined as those similar to or closely related to the state's sovereign capacity, or when a private entity performs a function essential for societal welfare due to state outsourcing or necessity.
The court clarified that the mere importance of an account to a user or its widespread use does not transform a private service into a public function. The nature of the function, not the size or reach of the entity, is the decisive factor. Furthermore, the court noted that Google does not hold a monopoly on email services, and disabling an account on security grounds does not, by itself, constitute a public function.
Even compliance with regulations like the IT Rules, 2021, which include grievance redressal obligations, does not automatically render disputes over account restrictions or alleged failures in customer support as public functions amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are now at liberty to pursue other legal remedies for their issue.