Delhi High Court rules LinkedIn is not a public body, limiting writ jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed against LinkedIn, clarifying that the platform is not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court ruled that LinkedIn and its grievance officer do not perform public functions, exempting them from the oversight typically applied to state entities.

The petitioner, Mayank Jain, had sought to challenge the restriction of his account, claiming the company provided only automated, template-based responses rather than specific justifications for the action. However, the court maintained that while LinkedIn serves a role in communication, its operations remain private, voluntary, and user-driven, lacking the governmental mandate required to qualify as a public function.

Justice Amit Mahajan indicated that individuals seeking redress for account-related disputes should pursue civil litigation to claim damages rather than attempting to invoke constitutional writs. This ruling reinforces the legal precedent that private social media platforms retain autonomy over their moderation policies and are not accountable through public law mechanisms for administrative decisions regarding user access.