Gmail Account Hacked and Locked? Delhi High Court Says You Cannot File a Writ Against Google: What Are Your Options?

What happened?

According to reports in LiveLaw, Bar and Bench and Asianet Newsable, a media company and its director went to the Delhi High Court. Their Gmail account had been opened by unknown people on 20 July 2026.

Google then disabled the account, saying it saw “unusual activity”. The director wrote to Google Support from another email address and got no reply, the petition said. A complaint to the Cyber Police Station also did not bring the account back.

So the company asked the High Court to order Google to check its recovery details and give back access. Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the petition in an order dated 8 October 2026, as reported.

Why did the court say no?

The petition was a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution (a direct request to the High Court, usually used against the government or bodies doing public work).

The court said a private company can face such a writ only if it does a public function (a job that is really a public duty). It held that email is a commercial service. Many other companies offer it too, so Google does not hold a monopoly.

The court also said that locking an account for security reasons, “without more”, is not a public duty. How big a company is, or how much a user needs the account, does not change this. As reported, the court said the nature of the function decides the matter, not the size or reach of the company.

Does this mean Google was right?

No. According to the reports, the court did not decide the merits (who was right about the account). It only said a writ was the wrong door.

The petitioners were left free to take other steps under the law. The reports do not say which ones. The court also said that duties to handle complaints under the IT Act and the 2021 IT Rules do not by themselves turn an account dispute into a public-function case.

Which laws apply if someone breaks into your account?

Nothing in the reports says the police have charged anyone here. But the law on hacked accounts is useful for any reader. Two sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 matter most.

Section 66C (identity theft). Using another person’s password or other unique identification feature, dishonestly or fraudulently, is punishable with up to three years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 66. If a person dishonestly or fraudulently does an act listed in section 43 (for example, getting into a computer or account without permission), the punishment is up to three years, or a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh, or both.

Is it bailable? Can police act on their own?

Section 77B of the IT Act says an offence with a punishment of three years and above is cognizable (police can act without a court’s permission). It also says an offence punishable with three years is bailable (bail is a right). Sections 66 and 66C both have a three-year maximum.

Police can register an FIR for a cognizable offence on information given orally or by electronic communication, under section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). If given electronically, the informant must sign it within three days.

What happens next in such a case?

The usual path is a complaint, an FIR, an inquiry into where the logins came from, and a court case if someone is traced and charged. Under section 78 of the IT Act, an officer not below the rank of Inspector investigates.

Meanwhile, the platform’s own recovery steps run in parallel. A court order is not needed to start them.

What are your rights?

You can report the break-in even if the platform has not replied. You can ask for a copy of the FIR and for updates on the inquiry. If you are accused of misusing someone’s account, you can ask for bail and have a lawyer with you.

A writ against a private company is rare. If one is not open, other routes may be. A lawyer can tell you whether a complaint to the company’s grievance officer or a civil case fits your facts.