Back
Modifies , Takedown Orders in Case
The has significantly narrowed its earlier takedown directions against , , and , ruling that the platforms are now only obligated to remove content that is “identical” to previously listed infringing material under a court order. For content that is merely “similar,” the companies may remove it only if such material violates their own content policies—a decision that strikes a delicate balance between protecting and preserving the protections afforded to intermediaries under the Information Technology Act.
Justice A.J. Bhambhani’s order came in a suit filed by spiritual leader Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, who alleged widespread infringement of his copyright, , and through deepfake videos and impersonated content. The original interim order of had directed , , and to remove a list of specified infringing content, as well as any content “similar” to it, within 48 hours of receiving a complaint. That broad mandate, however, drew immediate pushback from the platforms.
The Original Order and the Platforms’ Objections
Under the earlier direction, the platforms were required to act on both identical and similar content without further court scrutiny. and argued that this was overbroad and inconsistent with the framework established under , which provides intermediaries from liability for user-generated content so long as they comply with requirements. Citing the ’s decision in and the Division Bench ruling in , the platforms contended that they cannot be compelled to remove content without a specific court order unless they choose to do so under their own terms of service or content policies. They further pointed out that the original direction obligated them to act on content of which they had no actual knowledge through a court order—essentially deputising them as adjudicators of similarity.
Dr. Joshi’s counsel, led by Advocates , , and , countered that requiring a fresh court application each time a new URL or account posts infringing content would be “extremely onerous” and would “defeat the purpose of the .” The plaintiff argued that in the age of deepfakes, where fraudulent content can proliferate across multiple platforms in minutes, the judicial process must be agile enough to keep pace.
Court’s Bifurcated Approach
To resolve the competing concerns, Justice Bhambhani turned to the court’s own earlier ruling in (), which had grappled with a similar tension between copyright enforcement and obligations. Relying on that precedent, the court “split the direction in two,” creating distinct procedures for identical and similar content.
For content identical to the listed infringing material : The plaintiff may send the platform details of the new content on affidavit, supported by documentary evidence. The platform must then “technically verify” whether the new content is in fact identical to the material already covered by the . If it is, the platform must enforce the “as a measure” and remove the content. Simultaneously, the plaintiff must file an application to implead those specific URLs, posts, accounts, or handles, which the court will consider in due course. This mechanism provides the plaintiff with quick relief while ensuring that the court retains oversight over what new URLs are brought within the ’s ambit.
For content that is only similar, not identical : The plaintiff may again send details on affidavit, but the platform is only required to remove the content within 48 hours if it violates the platform’s own content policies or guidelines under the IT Act and its Rules. The platform is not compelled to remove the content simply because it resembles the listed infringing material. This preserves the ’s discretion to enforce its own community standards and avoids the overbreadth that the platforms had complained about.
The court expressly noted that for similar content, the plaintiff would need to initiate separate proceedings if the platform declines to act—but the plaintiff is not left without recourse.
Disclosure of Subscriber Information
Recognising the need to identify those behind the deepfake and impersonated accounts, the court also directed , , and to provide the plaintiff with the available —including name, address, phone number, email, and IP address—for the accounts or handles that have been blocked or removed. This information must be handed over in password-protected files within three weeks. However, for additional identical URLs that are later impleaded, disclosure of such information will only be ordered upon specific directions from the court, ensuring a case-by-case approach.
Legal Implications and Impact on Practice
This judgment is a significant development in the evolving jurisprudence on liability and in India. By distinguishing between identical and similar content, the court has crafted a workable framework that respects the protections of Section 79 while still providing an expedited route for victims of deepfakes and impersonation.
For legal practitioners, the decision offers clear guidance on how to approach takedown requests in cases. Plaintiffs must now be prepared to file affidavits identifying new infringing URLs and must promptly move to implead them. Platforms, on the other hand, gain clarity on their obligations: they must invest in technical verification tools to determine whether content is “identical,” but they are not required to adjudicate “similarity” absent a policy violation.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of the Home Box Office precedent, which may now become a standard reference in similar disputes. Moreover, the disclosure of subscriber information, while subject to court oversight, empowers plaintiffs to trace the originators of infringing content—a crucial tool for enforcing .
Conclusion
The case continues to evolve. The applications have been disposed of on the agreed terms, and the suit is scheduled to come up before the Joint Registrar on . Until then, the modified directions will govern the relationship between the spiritual leader and the tech giants.
The ’s nuanced approach in this matter serves as a model for balancing fundamental rights of reputation and privacy with the operational realities of digital platforms. As deepfake technology grows more sophisticated, this balance will only become more critical. For now, the court has set a clear standard: an must be tailored, and intermediaries must not be turned into roving censors.
