Bombay High Court seeks Centre's response to plea against LinkedIn account ban over Byju’s posts

The Bombay High Court on Friday issued notice in a petition challenging the suspension of a Mumbai-based doctor's LinkedIn account which had made critical remarks about ed-tech company Byju’s..A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale asked the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) of the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and LinkedIn to file responses. On the GAC's rejection of the petitioner's appeal against the suspension of his account, the bench queried,“Tell us, whether you would reconsider their appeal.".The dispute began in 2020 when Dr Aniruddha Malpani, a healthcare professional and angel investor, had his LinkedIn account restricted after posting critical comments about Byju’s.One of his posts read: "Why are Byju's hiring standards so low? And why don't they train their salesmen how to write properly? Many Byju's salesmen rise to the defense of their company when I expose the truth behind their shady sales practices. However, their ability to communicate is appalling. Illiterate salesmen create a bad impression or I guess since they only need to sell to poorly informed, poorly educated middle-class parents, Byju's doesn't want to waste time and money on training them.".LinkedIn flagged this post as defamatory and removed it from his account. Several other posts critical of Byju’s were also flagged and removed, and Malpani’s account was permanently restricted on July 14, 2020.He was directed to file a complaint with the Grievance Officer of LinkedIn, who was instructed to resolve it within a month. However, the Grievance Officer rejected his complaint on August 5, 2024.Frustrated by this decision, he then filed an appeal with the GAC in September 2024. On October 9, 2024, the GAC rejected his appeal, claiming that it had not been filed within the specified 30-day period after the Grievance Officer’s decision..Malpani, in his petition filed through Advocates Yadunath Bhargavan and Hetvi Savla, argues that the language used in the rules is not mandatory and that his appeal should be reconsidered, despite being filed after the 30-day window.He has raised concerns about the fairness and neutrality of the review process, claiming that LinkedIn’s actions were arbitrary and biased. It was argued that the platform acted as a “super censor,” suppressing free speech and stifling individuals who wish to speak out against corporate practices. He highlighted how his posts, which were simply critical of Byju’s business practices, were flagged as defamatory without providing him an opportunity for a fair review.Malpani has also requested that the delay in filing the appeal be excused due to medical reasons, and that the appeal be reconsidered, as the rules do not strictly require the appeal to be filed within 30 days..Byju’s, once India’s most valuable ed-tech startup, is facing insolvency proceedings after defaulting on a ₹158 crore payment to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in June 2024. While founder Byju Raveendran temporarily regained control of the company following a settlement with the BCCI, Glas Trust, a key creditor, challenged the settlement in the Supreme Court, which on October 23, 2024, quashed the deal, citing procedural issues.