Sub-title: Justice Pankaj Purohit dismissed a petition against YouTube LLC and Google LLC, ruling that private social media platforms do not perform public functions or statutory duties amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
High Court Rejects Constitutional Writ Against Private Digital Intermediaries
The YouTube Account Suspension Petition filed by a local content creator was not maintainable under Article 226, the Uttarakhand High Court held. Justice Pankaj Purohit ruled that YouTube LLC and Google LLC are private companies, not public authorities. Therefore, users cannot seek constitutional writ relief to restore suspended accounts.
The petitioner challenged the suspension of a YouTube account through a writ petition. However, the Court explained that YouTube and Google operate as private digital intermediaries under commercial agreements with users. Since they do not perform public functions or statutory duties, Article 226 does not apply to disputes involving account suspension.
The Court also clarified that the relationship between content creators and digital platforms arises from private contracts. It does not stem from any statutory obligation. As a result, disputes over account suspension or termination must follow civil law procedures instead of constitutional remedies.
Justice Purohit stated that users who believe a platform breached its contractual obligations may file a civil suit for damages or breach of contract before a competent civil court. The Court stressed that writ jurisdiction cannot enforce private commercial agreements.
The Bench further observed that courts issue writs of mandamus only when a public authority fails to perform a statutory or public duty. Private digital platforms that provide video-hosting and content-sharing services do not perform such duties.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the YouTube Account Suspension Petition as non-maintainable. However, it granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law.
