In response to a petition in the Delhi High Court, Facebook's parent says the public function isn't discharged

In response to a petition in the Delhi High Court, Facebook's parent says the public function isn't  ...

Meta claimed that it is a private entity and does not perform public functions, therefore the High Court''s judgment cannot be invoked against it. Meta opposed the petition and sought its dismissal without going into the merits of it.

In an affidavit filed on behalf of Meta, the petitioner falsely sought to invoke this court''s jurisdiction against it.

Meta is not obligated to carry out a public duty, and the Government does not control the management and day-to-day functioning of the affidavit filed in the case of Wokeflix.

According to Rule 4 (8) of the Information Technology Ethics Code, the petitioner''s Instagram account was reactivated within 72 hours of being disabled. Meta provided with an opportunity to appeal the alleged actions taken against their account. The opportunity before the appeal was made was counterproductive to law.

Dimple Kaul, Suyash Deep Rai, Jasdeep Munjal, Wokeflix, Rachit Kaushik, and Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde have challenged social media giants including Twitter, YouTube, and others to suspend their accounts.

  • Facebook Owner Meta Shares Glimpse of First Physical Store

The petitioner described the process as arbitrary and discriminating against the law and the Constitution. Their frustration is that their accounts were suspended without giving an opportunity for a hearing.