The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by media company Janta Live Press Network Pvt Ltd seeking restoration of its Gmail account, ruling that the provision of email services by a private entity does not constitute a public function amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Justice Amit Mahajan, in an oral order dated October 8, held that Google's decision to disable the account on security grounds after an alleged unauthorised access did not amount to the discharge of a public duty. The court clarified that the nature of the function performed, not the popularity or reach of the entity, determines whether a writ petition can be maintained against a private body.

"The decisive consideration thus is the nature of the function and not merely the size or reach of the entity concerned," Justice Mahajan observed.

The petition was filed by Janta Live Press Network Pvt Ltd, which operates a media business under the name Janta Live News, including a YouTube news channel, and its director. According to the petitioners, their Gmail account was accessed without authorisation by third parties on July 20, 2026, following which Google disabled the account citing "unusual activity."

Media Firm's Gmail Account Disabled After Unauthorised Access

The company's director approached Google Support through his personal email account, explaining the circumstances and requesting restoration of access. However, no response was received, the petitioners claimed. They subsequently lodged a formal complaint with the Cyber Police Station, but the account remained inaccessible.

Frustrated by the lack of action, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ to direct Google to verify their original recovery credentials and restore full access. They argued that despite being a private entity, Google performs a public function by providing email services and is bound by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the grievance but emphasised that the legal question was not whether the complaint deserved redress but whether the relief sought could be granted through writ proceedings.

Court Examines Scope of Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Entities

Justice Mahajan, referring to the legal principles governing public functions, noted that writ petitions under Article 226 can, in appropriate circumstances, be maintained against private bodies if they perform functions similar to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity, services outsourced by the State, or activities closely connected with the State's obligations towards public welfare.

However, the court held that the mere provision of digital services does not bring a private entity within that category. "In the present case, Respondent No. 1 (Google) 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 '," the court stated.

The court further observed that email services are a commercial activity undertaken by private entities. "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 ," Justice Mahajan said.

The court also noted that email services are offered by various independent providers and that Google does not enjoy a monopoly over such services.

Importance of Account Does Not Make It a Public Function

The petitioners had placed emphasis on the fact that the Gmail account was integral to their media business. Rejecting this argument, the court held that the importance of a particular account to its user does not alter the nature of the function performed by Google.

"The importance of a particular account to its user, or its widespread use, does not translate to mean that the same constitutes ' public function '. The decisive consideration thus is the nature of the function and not merely the size or reach of the entity concerned," the court observed.

The petitioners had also relied on the Delhi High Court's earlier decision in XYZ v. Union of India and connected matters, where the court dealt with claims related to informational privacy and sought de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results. Distinguishing that case, Justice Mahajan noted that the present petition merely sought restoration of an email account and did not involve the same kind of privacy or reputational concerns.

The court further clarified that the existence of statutory obligations concerning grievance redressal and intermediary compliance under the IT Act and the 2021 Rules does not automatically convert disputes arising from account restrictions, security incidents, or alleged failures of customer support into matters involving public functions.

IT Act Obligations Do Not Confer Writ Jurisdiction

"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 ," the court said.

Concluding that no public function in the strict legal sense required to invoke Article 226 was demonstrated, the court held that the petition was not maintainable. However, it granted the petitioners liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.

"The petitioners' are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law," the court stated.

The court accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners were represented by advocates Adil Sharf Uddin, Deepanshu Jha, and Divyanshu Bisht. Google LLC was represented by advocate Aishwarya Kane, while Central Government Standing Counsel Nitinjya Chaudhary appeared for the second respondent.