The court held that, in the context of copyright enforcement, online platforms like Telegram can be held liable for facilitating or enabling infringement activities conducted through their services. Despite the platform's status as an intermediary, it is not entitled to absolute immunity when it actively participates in or facilitates infringing activities. The court emphasized that the platform's role in hosting or sharing infringing content can lead to its liability, especially when it fails to take prompt action upon becoming aware of such infringement (!) .

Regarding the Safe Harbor provisions under the IT Act, 2000, the court clarified that these protections are not absolute. Intermediaries are afforded certain immunities provided they act expeditiously to remove or disable access to infringing content upon receiving actual knowledge or being notified of such infringement. However, this immunity does not extend to situations where the intermediary is found to have knowingly facilitated or contributed to infringing activities. The court underscored that the protections under the IT Act do not prevent the disclosure of user information or the identification of infringing parties when ordered by a court, especially in cases involving copyright violations (!) .

In summary, the court reinforced that while intermediaries benefit from certain protections under the IT Act, these are conditional and do not shield them from liability in cases of active facilitation of infringement. The platform's obligation to cooperate with lawful orders for disclosure and takedown is reaffirmed, and its liability is contingent upon its level of involvement and promptness in addressing infringing content (!) .