The Delhi High Court has issued a significant directive concerning the operational powers of the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), declaring that the regulatory body cannot dismiss user appeals against social media platforms simply due to a lack of provided information. This ruling marks a critical development in the enforcement of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, ensuring that users retain a robust mechanism for redressal when faced with opaque content moderation decisions by digital intermediaries.

The matter arose from a petition filed by Prakash Kumar Singh, who sought legal recourse after his Instagram account was summarily suspended and disabled by Meta Platforms Inc. on June 2, 2026, and June 9, 2026, respectively. Despite initial attempts to resolve the dispute through standard grievance mechanisms, Singh found himself at an impasse when his appeal before the GAC was disposed of on September 22, 2026. In that order, the Committee had noted that the explanations provided by the platform regarding the account's termination were lacking in clarity, but rather than pursuing further disclosure, it chose to close the matter.

Asserting Regulatory Authority in Digital Spaces

Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, emphasized that the GAC, established by the Central Government to function as a vital digital regulatory authority, possesses clear, inherent powers to demand accountability from service providers. The Court held that the GAC’s mandate to hear appeals from users dissatisfied with the decisions of social media platform Grievance Officers is not merely advisory but carries the weight of regulatory oversight.

“In the opinion of this Court, the Grievance Appellate Committee, which is a digital regulatory body established by the Central Government under the Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to hear appeals from users unsatisfied with the decisions of social media platform Grievance Officers, ought not to dispose of appeals solely because of lack of response/information from the intermediaries,” Justice Mahajan observed.

This finding strikes a balance between protecting the digital footprint of individual users and ensuring that intermediaries like Meta do not evade their obligations to explain content moderation actions. By confirming that the GAC has the necessary legal authority to compel companies to justify their actions—whether that involves the removal of content or the wholesale suspension of a user account—the Court has signaled a shift toward more transparent digital administrative practices.

Strengthening User Redressal Mechanisms

The core of the dispute highlighted a systemic issue wherein a user’s right to challenge an arbitrary platform decision was being curtailed by the intermediary's refusal or inability to provide sufficient evidence to support its moderation choices. According to the Court, the GAC’s role is to ensure a thorough investigation into the merits of each case, and it is fully empowered to demand the specific rationale behind a platform’s actions.

“The Committee has sufficient powers to direct the intermediaries to provide the requisite information and justify why specific content/account was removed/ suspended or why a user's complaint was previously rejected,” the order stated. This judicial clarification serves as a deterrent against the common practice of platforms providing vague or standardized responses to regulatory inquiries. For users like Singh, this means that the GAC is now explicitly required to function as an active investigator rather than a passive recipient of whatever information a platform chooses to share.

Compliance and Subsequent Proceedings

During the hearing before the High Court, counsel representing Meta Platforms Inc. conceded that the relevant information concerning the suspension of the petitioner’s account would be provided to the GAC within two days. This acknowledgment effectively conceded the necessity of transparent reporting as required under the prevailing IT Rules.

Following this submission, the Delhi High Court ordered the restoration of the petitioner’s appeal before the GAC. The Committee is now directed to consider the matter afresh and pass a comprehensive order expeditiously once the requisite documentation has been furnished by the respondent.

The Court’s decision is fundamentally restorative. By ensuring that the GAC cannot shirk its responsibility, the judgment provides a clear pathway for individuals to challenge technical or arbitrary platform suspensions. The order also preserves the petitioner's right to re-approach the Court should the Committee’s eventual decision fail to resolve the grievance adequately.

As digital platforms continue to play an integral role in public and personal life, the administrative oversight established by the 2021 IT Rules is increasingly being tested. The directive by the Delhi High Court reinforces the principle that social media platforms, while operating under their own internal guidelines, remain subject to the regulatory oversight of government bodies empowered to protect citizens from arbitrary digital exclusion. The immediate impact of this ruling will be seen in the pending review of Singh’s appeal, which will now require Meta to provide clear, substantive justification for its actions, setting a procedural precedent for similar appeals before the Committee in the future. With the appeal now restored, the GAC is expected to proceed with a more rigorous review, marking a victory for administrative accountability in the digital sphere.