Google Gmail account dispute: Delhi High Court says commercial email services don't qualify as public function

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a private company cannot be brought under writ jurisdiction merely because it provides email services, even if access to an account is critical to a user’s business, as per an ANI report. The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a media company seeking the restoration of its Gmail account.

In an order dated October 8, Justice Amit Mahajan said the key consideration in determining whether a writ petition can be maintained against a private entity under Article 226 of the Constitution is the nature of the function it performs, rather than its popularity, scale or reach.

The court observed that providing email services is a commercial activity and that disabling an account on security grounds does not, by itself, amount to the performance of a public duty.


“The decisive consideration thus is the nature of the function and not merely the size or reach of the entity concerned,” the court said.

Also Read: Maharashtra tribunal awards Rs 23.86 lakh plus 9% interest to family of 22-year-old killed a decade ago

Media company seeks restoration of Gmail account

The court was hearing a petition filed by Janta Live Press Network Pvt Ltd and its director against Google LLC and Google India Pvt Ltd, according to the ANI report. The petitioners sought directions for verification of their original account recovery credentials and restoration of full access to their Gmail account.

The company operates a media business under the name Janta Live News, which includes a YouTube news channel.

According to the petition, unidentified third parties allegedly accessed the Gmail account without authorisation on July 20, 2026. Google subsequently disabled the account, citing “unusual activity”.

The company’s director said he contacted Google Support through his personal email account, explained the circumstances and sought restoration of access. However, the petitioners claimed that they received no response.

They later lodged a formal complaint with the Cyber Police Station, but the account remained inaccessible.

Court says email services do not automatically qualify as a public function

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that a writ petition could be maintained against Google because it performs a public function. They relied on an earlier Delhi High Court judgment in XYZ v. Union of India and connected matters, along with the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Justice Mahajan distinguished the earlier judgment, noting that it concerned informational privacy and the continued availability of judicial records bearing individuals’ names in online search results. In that case, the petitioners had sought the removal of links to those records from search results and the masking of personal identifiers, alleging disproportionate and continuing damage to their reputation.

The court said the nature of the relief sought in the present case was different, as the petitioners wanted access to their email account restored.

The judge acknowledged that Article 226 can, in appropriate circumstances, be invoked against a private body. However, whether such jurisdiction can be exercised depends on the nature of the functions performed by that entity.

Referring to the legal principles governing public functions, the court noted that they may include activities similar to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity, services outsourced by the State, or functions closely linked to the State’s public welfare obligations.

However, the provision of email, hosting and other digital services does not automatically place a private company within this category, the court held.

Also Read: ‘Every country has good and bad sides’: Japanese woman living in Mumbai questions negative posts about India

Business importance of account does not change legal position

The High Court also rejected the argument that the Gmail account’s importance to the petitioners’ media operations changed the nature of Google’s activity. It noted that email services are available through several independent providers and are not monopolised by Google.

The court further clarified that statutory requirements concerning grievance redressal and intermediary compliance do not automatically turn every dispute over an account restriction, a security incident or an alleged failure of customer support into a matter involving the performance of a public function.

While acknowledging the petitioners’ grievance, the court emphasised that the question before it was whether the requested relief could be granted through a writ petition, rather than whether their complaint deserved attention.

It concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish that Google performed a public function in the legal sense required to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, and dismissed the petition.