Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Disclose Basis For Action Against SEBI-Registered Analyst's Instagram Accounts

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Meta to place on record the material on the basis of which it disabled one of the Instagram accounts of SEBI-registered research analyst Aakanksha Gupta and restricted three other social media accounts.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to disclose the material underlying the action against Gupta's accounts.

“The defendant no. 1 is directed to place on record the material based on which action has been taken against the plaintiff's accounts,” the court ordered.

Gupta told the court that she is a SEBI-registered research analyst who provides investment advice and financial literacy content. She has three Instagram accounts and one Facebook account.

One Instagram account has been disabled, while the other three accounts have restrictions. The court was told that the action was affecting her work as a stock market advisor and analyst.

Gupta is also active on Instagram under the handle “aakankshatrader”.

Appearing for Gupta, Senior Counsel Diya Kapoor said Meta had notified her that the disabled account did not comply with its community standards on “adult sexual solicitation”. Gupta denied engaging in any such activity.

“I am instructed to state that we have conducted no such activity at all on this account,” Kapoor told the court.

Kapoor argued that Gupta had repeatedly sought the basis for the action from Meta. She said Gupta had not been provided the material underlying the decision.

Kapoor said the account had earlier faced copyright strikes and was subsequently restored. According to Gupta's side, the strikes were found to be fraudulent. The account was then disabled again on the ground of adult sexual solicitation.

Meta disputed Gupta's account of the copyright strikes.

Advocate Varun Pathak, appearing for Meta, said the other three accounts were active but carried restrictions arising from scam and fraud reports. He said these restrictions were not related to copyright strikes.

Pathak said the restrictions included limitations on monetisation links and other sharing features.

On the disabled account, Pathak said Meta's preliminary investigation indicated that it was “a genuine case of adult solicitation”. He sought two weeks to verify the matter and respond to the court.

The court asked Meta to produce the material underlying the action. Pathak said that depending on the nature of the material, Meta might not be able to produce certain content itself.

He said Meta could instead explain the basis for the action on an affidavit.

Meta also disputed that the dispute properly concerned intellectual property rights. Pathak raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit.

He argued that the matter was not an intellectual property dispute and that the copyright issue cited by Gupta was not the basis of the present action.

Kapoor, meanwhile, argued that Meta's action was affecting Gupta's livelihood and freedom of speech. She also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India while seeking disclosure of the basis for the account's disablement.

The court did not grant substantive relief to Gupta at this stage. Meta agreed to preserve all four accounts in the meantime.

The court allowed three weeks for Meta's written statement and two weeks for Gupta's replication.

It also directed Meta to place on record the material on the basis of which action had been taken against Gupta's accounts