Court Rules Provision of Email Services by Private Entities is Commercial Activity, Not a Public Function; Writ Petition Under Article 226 Not Maintainable
In a significant judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, dismissed a writ petition filed by Janta Live Press Network Pvt Ltd and its Director seeking restoration of access to a disabled Gmail account against Google LLC and Google India Pvt Ltd. The petitioners had contended that their Gmail account, integral to their media business, was unauthorizedly accessed by third parties and subsequently disabled by Google citing "unusual activity." Despite attempts to communicate with Google Support and lodging a complaint with the Cyber Police Station, the account remained inaccessible, prompting the filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court, however, emphasized that the provision of email services by Google, a private entity, is a commercial activity and does not constitute the performance of a public function or duty. The petitioners' reliance on the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was found insufficient to establish that Google's actions fall within the ambit of public functions that justify invoking writ jurisdiction.
Justice Mahajan referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling in G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003), underscoring that writ jurisdiction can extend to private entities only when they perform functions akin to those of the State or when the State outsources sovereign functions to them. The Court clarified that mere size, reach, or importance of the service to the petitioner's business does not convert the service into a public function.
The Court also distinguished the present case from the recent XYZ v. Union of India judgment, which dealt with privacy concerns related to judicial records' digital availability. Unlike that case, the current petition involved restoration of a private email account and not public access to judicial information.
In conclusion, the Court held that no public function was demonstrated by the petitioners to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and advised them to seek appropriate legal remedies under other provisions of law. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that private digital service providers' commercial activities, such as email account management, do not attract writ jurisdiction unless a public function is clearly established. It also underscores the limited scope of writ petitions against private entities and the necessity for petitioners to pursue alternate legal avenues for redressal of grievances in such matters.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition under Article 226 seeking restoration of access to a private e-mail account against Google held not maintainable, as provision of e-mail services by a private entity is a commercial activity and not a "public function"; mere applicability of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 does not make such dispute amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950; Information Technology Act, 2000; Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
