The court emphasized that disputes governed by a contractual relationship between private parties may not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that once the constitutional validity of a provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court, there is no question of the High Court entertaining a petition questioning the same provision.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Sanjeev Pulalekar learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. Raghav Seth for Respondents No.3 and Mr. D. Khambata, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Reddy, Ms. Preeti Kolluri, Mr. Ram Kakkar, Advocates for Respondent No.4.

2. The Petitioner, in this case, claims to be a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), a registered Public Charitable Trust, having its Ashram at Ramanathi, Ponda, Goa. The Petitioner claims to have created Facebook pages on the social media platform, popularly known as 'Facebook' operated by Respondents No.3 and 4. The Petitioner claims that they would use these pages to spread the essence of their spirituality and allied matters. The Petitioner claims that lakhs of persons have visited these Facebook pages of the Petitioner and benefited from the contents posted by them on this platform.

3. The Petitioners have pleaded that after about 10 years, Respondents No.3 and 4, without assigning any reasons and without there being any order from any Government Agencies, blocked the Facebook pages of the Petitioner, thereby disabling the Petitioner from communicating or propagating its philosophy through the Facebook pages and disabling the members of the public from accessing the information which the Petitioner used to post on such Facebook pages.

4. The Petitioner has pleaded that now, if any person tries to access the Facebook pages of the Petitioner, then, the following message appears :

"Hi adhyatma,

unfortunately your page Sanatan Sanstha English has been unpublished because it violates the Facebook pages terms this means that you can still see the page but other people won't be able to see it and you won't be able to add new people to help you work on your page if you think this is a mistake please let us know, thanks

the Facebook team."

5. The Petitioner has pleaded that the action of Respondents No.3 and 4 is highhanded and arbitrary. The Petitioner has pleaded that action on the part of Respondents No.3 and 4, amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights of the Petitioner, which, Respondents No.1 and 2 are duty-bound to protect. The Petitioner has pleaded that the action on the part of Respondents No.3 and 4, in blocking the Petitioner's Facebook pages, amounts to usurpation of powers which are only vested in Respondents No.1 and 2.

6. The Petitioners have pleaded that during the pendency of the Petition, they received a communication dated 20/10/2020 informing it, that as per the terms of service, which includes 'Community Standards' of Facebook, Respondents No.3 and 4 have a right to permanently disable access to any account that breaches the Community Standards.

7. The Petitioner accordingly amended the Petition to place on record the letter dated 20/10/2020. The Petitioner, by the same amendment, referred to some proceedings before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a Civil Suit bearing No.CS (OS) 510 of 2016, instituted by Sasikala Pushpa vs. Facebook and others and finally raised a challenge to the provisions of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as being violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

8. Based upon the aforesaid pleadings, the Petitioner has applied for the following reliefs in this Petition.

A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue notice to the Respondents.

B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent no.1 to 2 to ensure that Resp. no. 3 and 4 are compelled to unblock the facebook pages of the petitioner forthwith and also to allow publication of petitioner's website on facebook.

C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased direct Resp. No.1 and 2 to establish government mechanism to regulate the social media platforms such as the Resp. No. 3 and 4.

D. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 1 to 2 to