Meta Refuses to Carry Public Duty in Delhi Court

Social media company Meta (former Facebook) responded to the Delhi High Court petition on social media accounts suspension. The company insists that even the High Court cannot apply its jurisdictional power against its private processes. Meta claims that the petitioner tried to invoke the court against Meta improperly. 

No Public Duty

In Meta’s response to the Wokeflix petition, the company says that it doesn’t have any obligations to carry out a public duty as well as to allow any governmental attempts to control the internal structure, functioning, and management principles of the company. 

The company says the suspended Instagram account of the petitioner was returned to him within 72 hours after the ban. Besides, Meta states that it introduced the account to its decision and offered an opportunity to appeal within 30 days before suspension. However, the petitioner refused to use it referring to the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code. It says that an appellation can be forwarded only after the action has been taken. 

The petitioner insists that Meta’s actions in suspending the accounts are against the Constitution and other regulations. Besides, there was a complaint that Meta didn’t offer an opportunity for a hearing to let users (petitioners) challenge the company’s decision to suspend the accounts before they were suspended. 

Tricky Case

Hopefully, you haven’t fallen asleep while reading this news. This story may seem boring, but it’s also very important and reveals Meta’s anti-democratic behavior. What is your opinion about Meta’s current position? Is it fair enough to the suspended accounts or do they need to create a more transparent process? Reply in the comments and add your friends to the chat by sharing the link to this piece on social media.