NEW DELHI: Social media company Meta . Platform, Inc – parent company of popular platforms Instagram and Facebook – have stated in Delhi high court that the rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech) of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked against it by users as it is a private entity that is not real. perform public functions.
In an affidavit filed in response to a petition to disable Instagram accounts, the US-based company said that the “Instagram Service is a voluntary and free platform” governed by a private contract and claimant user “doesn’t have basic permissions to use it”.
The High Court has seized several petitions for the suspension and deletion of several user accounts by various social media platforms. Meta argues that there is no obligation to perform a “public obligation” and that when taking action against a user under a private contract between them, it leads to a “contract dispute between two private parties”.
Whether its enforcement actions are inconsistent or not are governed by Instagram’s Terms of Service and Community guideconstitutes a private contract, and Meta is therefore not subject to HC’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the social media giant said.
“Plaintiff’s attempt to get this Hon‘The Court stated that invoking its jurisdiction was particularly inappropriate as the relationship between the petitioner and Meta arose out of a private contract and the alleged dispute in question was a contract. and the rights of Article 19 cannot be invoked against a private legal entity like Meta,” the oath said.
It argues that “attempts to assert Article 19 rights to Meta, a private entity, are incorrect, contrary to the law and should be rejected… Meta does not perform a public function that would make it may be subject to the text of this fine court jurisdiction under Article 226.”
“Plaintiff has not alleged a single fact that proves that Instagram Serviceor Meta itself, meets any of the above tests (in terms of public functionality),” it said.
On the contrary, it says, “Meta has no public obligation, the government does not exercise any control over Meta’s management nor the day-to-day operations of Meta, and Meta is not granted monopoly power. authority to perform any Activity.” The Affidavit added that Meta has not been recognized as a monopoly under the law, the company does not perform any function similar to or closely related to the functions specified. performed by the state in its sovereign capacity and Meta voluntarily provides the Instagram Services and is not obligated to do so.
In an affidavit filed in response to a petition to disable Instagram accounts, the US-based company said that the “Instagram Service is a voluntary and free platform” governed by a private contract and claimant user “doesn’t have basic permissions to use it”.
The High Court has seized several petitions for the suspension and deletion of several user accounts by various social media platforms. Meta argues that there is no obligation to perform a “public obligation” and that when taking action against a user under a private contract between them, it leads to a “contract dispute between two private parties”.
Whether its enforcement actions are inconsistent or not are governed by Instagram’s Terms of Service and Community guideconstitutes a private contract, and Meta is therefore not subject to HC’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the social media giant said.
“Plaintiff’s attempt to get this Hon‘The Court stated that invoking its jurisdiction was particularly inappropriate as the relationship between the petitioner and Meta arose out of a private contract and the alleged dispute in question was a contract. and the rights of Article 19 cannot be invoked against a private legal entity like Meta,” the oath said.
It argues that “attempts to assert Article 19 rights to Meta, a private entity, are incorrect, contrary to the law and should be rejected… Meta does not perform a public function that would make it may be subject to the text of this fine court jurisdiction under Article 226.”
“Plaintiff has not alleged a single fact that proves that Instagram Serviceor Meta itself, meets any of the above tests (in terms of public functionality),” it said.
On the contrary, it says, “Meta has no public obligation, the government does not exercise any control over Meta’s management nor the day-to-day operations of Meta, and Meta is not granted monopoly power. authority to perform any Activity.” The Affidavit added that Meta has not been recognized as a monopoly under the law, the company does not perform any function similar to or closely related to the functions specified. performed by the state in its sovereign capacity and Meta voluntarily provides the Instagram Services and is not obligated to do so.
