As per a report by MediaNama, Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court, in Mayank Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 16207/2026), held that LinkedIn and its resident grievance officer do not perform a public function and so are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and dismissed the petition in an oral order dated November 2. Jain, a LinkedIn user, alleged that LinkedIn restricted his account without warning or explanation, answered his appeals with template replies, and left a restriction first described as temporary in place indefinitely. The order does not decide whether the restriction was justified.

The Court said that the mere provision of a platform for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, constitute a governmental function, and found that LinkedIn's primary function is to provide a platform for expression, with public discourse a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty. It relied on Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880), adding to a line of Delhi High Court rulings treating online providers as private actors when they restrict accounts. The Court said the petitioner's recourse appears more appropriate for a civil suit, in which damages could be claimed, and noted that he had already appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A(3) of the IT Rules, 2021. The Union of India was a respondent, but no specific relief was sought against it. The outcome of the Committee appeal is not reported.