Suspending Email On Security Grounds Doesn’t Constitute Public Function: Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Restoration of Gmail Account
The Delhi High Court was considering a petition whereby a media company sought restoration of full access to its Gmail account.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a media company’s petition seeking restoration of access to its Gmail account while observing that 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 High Court was considering a petition whereby the petitioner company, Janta Live Press Network, sought issuance of a writ to Google (first Respondent) to verify the petitioner’s original recovery credentials and restore full access to the petitioner’s Gmail account.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “The provision of providing e-mail services is 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. Infact e-mail services are offered by various independent providers, and the same is also not monopolised by Respondent No. 1. 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.”
“In conclusion, despite its widespread use, no ‘public function’ in the strict legal sense intended to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been demonstrated”, it added.
Advocate Adil Sharf Uddin represented the Petitioner while Advocate Aishwarya Kane represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The first petitioner company owns and operates a media business under the name of ‘Janta Live News ’, including a YouTube news channel, and the second Petitioner is its Director. The petitioners claimed that the Gmail account was unauthorizedly accessed by third parties, following which the Gmail account was disabled by Google (first Respondent), citing ‘unusual activity’. It was claimed that the Director had sent an e-mail to the Google Support Team from his personal e-mail account narrating the sequence of events and seeking restoration; however, no response was received. Consequently, a formal complaint was lodged with the Cyber Police Station. The petitioners thus approached the High Court seeking restoration of access to their Gmail account.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, stated that the notion of ‘public function’ plays a crucial role in determining whether a writ petition is maintainable against private entities or non-state actors or not. The Bench further noted that the Apex Court has consistently held that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against any person or entity, including private bodies, if they perform functions that can be construed as ‘public functions.’ “While the term public function has not categorically been defined, it may be understood as functions that are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that simply because Google is a private entity, and solely because it provides e-mail, hosting or other digital services, the same does not amount to mean that it can be construed as a ‘public function.’ “Emphasis has been laid by the petitioners’ on the fact that the g-mail account in question is integral to the petitioners’ media business. The said stance, by itself, does not alter the nature of function performed by Respondent No. 1”, it further stated.
The Bench held that 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.
Holding that no ‘public function’ was present to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench dismissed the petition and ordered, “The petitioners’ are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.”
Cause Title: Janta Live Press Network Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Google LLC and Google India Pvt Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8978)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Adil Sharf Uddin, Deepanshu Jha, Divyanshu Bisht
Respondent: Advocate Aishwarya Kane, Central Govt Standing Counsel Nitinjya Chaudhary, Advocates Rahul Mourya, Govt Pleader Shubham Goyal