The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by a media company seeking restoration of its Gmail account, holding that Google’s provision of email services is not a public function and therefore the constitutional remedy under Article 226 is not available. The decision clarifies that even widespread use of a digital platform does not transform a commercial activity into a sovereign or public duty.

Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that the nature of the function performed by a private entity, not its popularity or reach, is the decisive factor in determining whether a writ petition can be maintained against it. The order leaves Janta Live Press Network Pvt Ltd and its director to pursue relief through other legal avenues, such as civil suits or consumer complaint mechanisms, for their locked account.

The petitioners, who run a media business under the name ‘Janta Live News’ including a YouTube news channel, had approached the High Court after their Gmail account was disabled by Google on July 20, 2026, citing “unusual activity”. They claimed the account was accessed without authorisation by third parties. Despite approaching Google Support through the director’s personal email and lodging a formal complaint with the Cyber Police Station, access was not restored.

The court took note of the grievance as “undisputedly serious”, but framed the threshold question as whether the relief could be granted through a writ petition. It concluded it could not.

Court Draws Line Between Digital Services and Sovereign Functions

The petitioners argued that Google discharges a public function and is bound by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They relied on the Division Bench decision in XYZ v. Union of India (2026:DHC:8440), which dealt with de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results on informational privacy grounds.

Justice Mahajan rejected this comparison, noting that the XYZ case involved claims related to continued harm from publicly accessible judicial records, whereas the present case “merely seeks restoration of an e-mail account”. He observed that the public function test must be applied strictly: “In the present case, Respondent No. 1 is a private entity, and solely because it provides e-mail, hosting or other digital services, the same does not tantamount to mean that it can be construed as a ‘public function’.”

Citing G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003) 4 SCC 225, the court explained that public functions are those similar to or closely related to functions performable by the State in its sovereign capacity, or services so closely knit with State obligations that they become necessary for societal welfare.

The judgment emphasised that email services are a commercial activity undertaken by private entities and are offered by various independent providers, not monopolised by Google. “Neither the provision of an email account nor its suspension or disabling on security grounds, without more, constitutes the performance of a public function or discharge of a public duty,” the court held.

Statutory Obligations Do Not Create Public Function

The court also addressed the petitioners’ reliance on the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines. While acknowledging that these laws impose certain obligations concerning grievance redressal and intermediary compliance, the court found that such duties do not automatically convert ordinary account disputes into matters of public function.

“The existence of certain obligations concerning grievance redressal and intermediary compliance does not automatically convert disputes arising from account restriction, security incident or alleged failure of customer support into a public function amenable to writ jurisdiction,” Justice Mahajan observed.

This clarification is significant for the growing number of users who rely on digital accounts for their livelihood or business. The court declined to expand the writ remedy to cover routine service disputes with private technology companies, even when the account in question is central to the user’s professional operations.

Alternative Remedies Remain Open

The court did not rule on the merits of Google’s decision to disable the account or the petitioners’ allegation of unauthorised access. It simply held that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226. “No ‘public function’ in the strict legal sense intended to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been demonstrated,” the order stated.

The petitioners are now free to pursue civil remedies, seek relief before consumer forums, or approach the appropriate authority under the IT Act’s grievance mechanism. The court specifically granted liberty “to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law”.

The judgment reinforces the settled principle that writ jurisdiction against private bodies is an exception, not the norm, and that courts will not treat every commercial service with widespread adoption as a public function. For legal practitioners and digital rights advocates, the ruling signals that disputes over account access with private platforms must typically be resolved outside the constitutional writ framework.