New Delhi, May 5
The right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution can’t be invoked against it by a user and that it’s a private entity which does not discharge a public function, social media company Meta Platforms Inc – the mother organisation of Instagram and Facebook—has told the Delhi High Court.
“Petitioner’s attempt to assert Article 19 rights against Meta, a private entity, is improper, contrary to law, and ought to be denied…Meta is not discharging a public function that would make it amenable to this Hon’ble Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226,” Meta submitted in an affidavit.
The affidavit has been filed in response to petitions challenging an alleged disabling, suspension and deletion on accounts by various social media platforms.
The US-based company said the “Instagram Service is a free and voluntary platform”, governed by a private contract, and the petitioner user “has no fundamental right to use it”.
“Petitioner’s attempt to have this Hon’ble Court invoke its writ jurisdiction is particularly inappropriate as the relationship between Petitioner and Meta arises from a private contract and the alleged dispute at issue is a contractual one and Article 19 rights cannot be invoked against a private entity such as Meta,” the affidavit read.
In response to another petition against the suspension of a Twitter account, the Centre had in March told the high court that an individual’s liberty and freedom cannot be “waylaid or jettisoned in the slipstream of social and technological advancement” and the social media platforms must respect the fundamental rights of the citizens and conform to the Constitution of India.
It had emphasised that a significant social media intermediary must be held accountable for subjugating and supplanting fundamental rights like the right to freedom of speech and expression, else it would have “dire consequences for any democratic nation.”
However, Meta contended that it is not obligated to carry out a “public duty” and when action is taken against a user in accordance with the private contract between them, it results in a “contractual dispute between two private parties”.
Whether its alleged enforcement actions were improper is governed by the Instagram Terms of Service and Community Guidelines which constitute the private contract and Meta is thus not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the social media giant said.
Contrary to the petitioner’s allegations, it does not enjoy a monopoly in the domain of information dissemination or carry out any sovereign function, and the law only requires intermediaries to provide an opportunity to appeal after the action has been taken against any account and not hear them before action is taken, Meta submitted.
