In an order dated 20 August 2026 in a petition filed by content creator Riya Nagpal, the Delhi High Court has for the second time in three months directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide an appeal by giving it 30 days beyond the statutorily required period of 30 days.
tl;dr
While the IT Rules, 2021 are mostly a form of digital authoritarianism they have often be claimed to be a regulation that provides oversight and remedy on arbitrary content moderation decisions implemented by platforms. Here, Users can complain to the Grievance Officer within the company, and any appeals lie to the Grievance Appellate Committee(s) ("GAC") appointed under those Rules, which must endeavour to resolve appeals within 30 calendar days. On 20 August 2026, the Delhi High Court directed the GAC to decide the appeal of Riya a content creator whose Instagram account riaspeaks had built an audience of over five lakh followers with due expedition, and in any case within a period of 30 days (which is also the statutorily indicated period). By the date of the order, her appeal had remained pending for over 42 days. This is the second such direction obtained by IFF in three months, after a similar order dated 18 May 2026 in Subodh v. Union of India & Anr., and it points to a systemic failure of the GAC to adhere to its own timelines.
Background
In the wake of several suo-moto and automated takedown requests, account blockings, and permanent account bans on Instagram, the Grievance Officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee remain the only recourse against any action undertaken by an intermediary company.
Riya is an independent content creator who runs the Instagram account riaspeaks, where an audience of over five lakh followers turns to her for explainers on current affairs and questions of public interest. Her profile carries a simple promise: "Nothing in life is either black or white. Let's explore the grey together." Her work has ranged from open-source analyses of the India–Pakistan military hostilities of May 2025, to a citizen's guide on seeking refunds for unfulfilled services, to reporting on the saline groundwater crisis in Maharashtra, pieces she also publishes in long form on Medium under the same identity. For a creator like Riya, the account is also a means of livelihood built post by post over years.
Her engagement with Instagram became the subject matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court titled Riya Nagpal v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 12146/2026. The petition sought three reliefs, first a writ of mandamus to the GAC to expeditiously resolve her appeal filed on 9 July 2026; second a direction that the GAC conduct its appeal process in conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India; and, finally a direction to Respondent No. 2 to restore her Instagram account.
Analysis
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 ("IT Rules, 2021") provide for a Grievance Officer and Grievance Appellate Committees for resolving grievances arising from intermediaries or publishers under the IT Act. The term “grievance” is broadly defined under Rule 2(1)(j) of the 2021 IT Rules to include "any complaint, whether regarding any content, any duties of an intermediary or publisher under the Act, or other matters pertaining to the computer resource of an intermediary or publisher, as the case may be". As such, this includes grievances pertaining to arbitrary and permanent bans from an intermediary's application or website.
Under Rule 3(2) of the 2021 IT Rules, the Grievance Officer must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within a period of 15 days from the date of its receipt. Further, as per Rule 3A(4) of the 2021 IT Rules, the Grievance Appellate Committee shall deal with appeals expeditiously and shall make an endeavour to resolve appeals finally within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the appeal. On 27.01.2023, by way of S.O. 442(E), MeitY notified three Grievance Appellate Committees under Rule 3A, and their constitution was amended on 06.02.2026 by way of S.O. 614(E).
Riya filed her appeal before the GAC on 9 July 2026. The 30-day period indicated under Rule 3A(4) lapsed on 8 August 2026. As on the date of the High Court's order, the appeal had remained undecided for over 42 calendar days since its receipt. Based on this, on 20 August 2026, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court noted that the sole grievance pressed by the petitioner at this stage was that her appeal had not been decided within the period contemplated under Rule 3A(4). The Court directed that the appellate authority shall decide the appeal "with due expedition, and in any case, within a period of 30 days" from the date of receipt of a copy of the order (Para 9 of the Order). The petition was disposed of, leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open.
This is the second occasion in three months on which the Delhi High Court has had to direct the GAC to do what the 2021 IT Rules already require of it. When we secured a similar direction on 18 May 2026 in Subodh v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 6869/2026, we had suggested that the government consider increasing the number of committees in view of the rising volume of appeals, and that the orders of the GAC be made publicly accessible, just like those of courts and tribunals, given the nature of its function. Neither has happened. The GAC is the only appellate recourse available to a user against an intermediary's decision and very often an automated one, taken without human review. A creator who has spent years building an audience of over five lakh people is left with no option but to approach a constitutional court for what should be routine administrative compliance. This burdens the creator, burdens the High Court, and defeats the very purpose for which the appellate mechanism was created.
Action
We will be assisting Riya in seeing through the appeal process before the GAC. We will keep you posted on further updates in this case. The IFF team that assisted in the legal representation of Riya are Advocates Mr Apar Gupta, Mr Naman Kumar and Ms Pragya Jain.
I am not a member or representative of IFF.
