Back
asks to decide SFI appeal within three weeks
The on Thursday directed the Centre's (GAC) to decide the 's (SFI) appeal against the permanent disabling of its official account within three weeks. Justice Amit Mahajan, hearing the plea, expressed his expectation that the GAC would dispose of the matter expeditiously, noting the statutory timeline prescribed under the had already been exceeded.
SFI, the student wing of the
, had moved the High Court after its account @SfiDelhi was permanently disabled by
on
. The organisation subsequently sought a review through the platform's internal grievance mechanism and, failing that, filed an appeal with the GAC on
. Despite the Rules requiring the GAC to
"endeavour to resolve the appeal finally within thirty calendar days,"
the appeal remained pending as of the court hearing, with the GAC website still showing it as "under process."
Background: Disabling of Account and Internal Appeals
According to SFI's petition, when users attempted to access the account,
displayed a notice stating that the account
"may be associated with another account that has gone against our rules"
and that this allegedly violated
's
"Community Standards on Account Integrity."
The organisation contended that it was not provided with any specifics regarding the alleged violation, nor was it given an
before the permanent disablement.
SFI first raised a complaint with
's internal grievance officer on
, but the platform merely acknowledged receipt of the complaint without providing any substantive response. The internal appeal submitted on
was also rejected, with
reiterating that the account
"still doesn't follow our community standards on account integrity."
Left with no effective remedy, SFI approached the GAC on
, but the committee failed to pass any order within the statutory 30-day window.
Court Proceedings and Directions
During the hearing, SFI's counsel, , argued that the GAC's inaction had resulted in a continuing deprivation of the organisation's under . He emphasised that the account had approximately 13,000 followers and served as a key digital platform for disseminating information about SFI's activities, campaigns, and student-related concerns.
The counsel representing the submitted that the GAC would be advised to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three to four weeks. Taking this submission on record, Justice Mahajan disposed of the plea, stating that he "expected" the GAC to decide SFI's appeal within three weeks. The court did not issue a formal but expressed confidence that the committee would comply with the statutory timeline.
Legal Framework: The GAC Under IT Rules 2021
The GAC was established under
, as a
to hear appeals against decisions of social media platforms' grievance officers. Sub-rule (4) specifically mandates that the GAC
"shall deal with the appeal expeditiously and shall make an endeavour to resolve the appeal finally within thirty calendar days from the date of receipt of the appeal."
This case highlights a recurring issue: multiple petitions have reached the seeking directions to the GAC to decide appeals against the blocking or suspension of social media accounts within the prescribed period. The court's intervention underscores the importance of adherence to statutory timelines, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake.
Analysis: Due Process and Social Media Account Disablement
SFI's petition raises significant questions about in content moderation. The organisation argued that the disabling of its account was , as did not disclose the identity of the allegedly associated account, the conduct said to constitute a violation, the particular policy allegedly breached, or the material on the basis of which the account was disabled. This lack of transparency is a recurring concern in platform governance, where automated or opaque enforcement actions can disproportionately impact organisations that rely on social media for outreach.
was designed to provide a check on such decisions by creating an independent appellate mechanism. However, delays in the GAC's functioning undermine its effectiveness. The 's direction, while not binding in the strictest sense, serves as a reminder that the GAC must act with the urgency the Rules contemplate.
Implications for Legal Practice and Platform Regulation
For legal professionals representing clients affected by social media account suspensions or removals, this case reinforces the importance of exhausting the three-tier grievance mechanism: first with the platform's grievance officer, then with the GAC, and finally before a constitutional court. The court's willingness to intervene when the GAC fails to decide within the statutory period provides a viable avenue for relief.
Moreover, the case may influence future regulatory reforms. The (MeitY) is currently reviewing the IT Rules, and the GAC's performance—including its adherence to timelines—will likely be a key factor. If delays persist, there may be calls for stronger accountability measures, such as automatic vacation of the platform's decision if the GAC does not rule within 30 days.
Conclusion
The 's order in is a straightforward yet significant reminder that statutory timelines exist for a reason. By directing the GAC to decide SFI's appeal within three weeks, the court has affirmed that the cannot be indefinitely postponed by administrative delays. As social media platforms continue to play an increasingly central role in public discourse, ensuring timely and fair appellate review is essential to safeguarding democratic values.
The SFI matter is now back in the hands of the GAC, which must deliver a reasoned order on whether the disablement of @SfiDelhi was justified under 's Community Standards and the broader legal framework. The outcome will be closely watched by student organisations, political groups, and digital rights advocates alike.
