HC asks user seeking unblocking of his LinkedIn account to approach Grievance Officer

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has directed an individual, Aniruddha Malpani, who had sought orders for the reinstatement of his LinkedIn account, to address his grievance through the platform’s designated Grievance Officer. Malpani had claimed that his LinkedIn account was illegally blocked.

Malpani’s petition not only sought the reinstatement of his account but also called for LinkedIn to establish a clear procedure for resolving disputes arising from using their platform. Additionally, he requested that the Union of India and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) implement guidelines governing the interactions of digital intermediaries with Indian citizens.

LinkedIn’s counsel, Advocate Saurabh Kumar, informed the court that the Government of India had already established the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which were updated in 2023. These rules, effective from February 25, 2021, mandate that platforms like LinkedIn appoint a Grievance Officer to address user complaints. Kumar emphasised that LinkedIn complied with these regulations and appointed a Grievance Officer, whose details are publicly accessible online. He argued that Malpani should utilise this existing mechanism to resolve his issue.

Malpani’s counsel, however, contended that the blocking of Malpani’s account occurred before the new rules came into effect. He expressed concerns that the Grievance Officer might refuse to address Malpani’s complaint because the grievance predated the implementation of the rules.

The bench, comprising Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla, considered these arguments and concluded that Malpani’s apprehension was unfounded. They clarified that the Grievance Officer is required to evaluate the complaint on its merits, irrespective of the timing of the rules’ enactment. The court directed Malpani to submit his grievance to LinkedIn’s Grievance Officer, treating the writ petition as his formal complaint.

Furthermore, the court ordered the Grievance Officer to address Malpani’s complaint expeditiously, within one month from the date of the order, and to decide based on the merits of the case. Should the Grievance Officer fail to resolve the issue, Malpani would be entitled to escalate the matter to the Appellate Committee as outlined under Rule 3A of the 2021 Rules.

With these directives, the court disposed of Malpani’s writ petition, and the related interim application filed by LinkedIn.