Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases involving films, literature, or artistic content deemed derogatory or obscene, courts may order edits or deletions of specific scenes or dialogues, but generally do not mandate total ban unless content is highly offensive ["Crossword Entertainment Private Limited VS Central Board of Film Certification - Delhi"] ["ITC LIMITED vs MR VINAY GUPTA - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:["Court In Its Own Motion VS S Gurumurthy - Delhi"]["Nirmaljit Singh Narula VS Indijobs At Hubpages. Com - Delhi"]["NIRMALJIT SINGH NARULA vs INDIJOBS AT HUBPAGES.COM & ORS - Delhi"]["Dinamalar rep.by its Publisher, K.Ramasubbu vs T.Senthilvel - Madras"]["ITC LIMITED vs MR VINAY GUPTA - Karnataka"]["IE ONLINE MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs NITIN BHATNAGAR & ORS. - Delhi"]
In today's digital age, once content is published online, it can spread rapidly, potentially causing harm through defamation, copyright infringement, or privacy violations. Many individuals and businesses face the question: how can I delete a published content? Whether it's defamatory articles, infringing materials, or unauthorized uploads, Indian law provides structured mechanisms for removal. This guide outlines the primary legal avenues, drawing from the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), intermediary guidelines, and judicial precedents. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The removal of published online content typically involves a mix of self-help measures, statutory compliance by platforms, and judicial intervention. Key pillars include:
Intermediaries like social media platforms or hosting services enjoy 'safe harbor' protection only if they exercise due diligence and remove content within 36 hours of receiving actual notice. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public Charitable Trust Thr Trustee Mahesh Gupta VS Jitender Bagga - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1334
The first step is often a formal legal notice demanding removal. As seen in cases where plaintiffs served notices to defendants, this explicitly requests takedown and disclosure of responsible parties. For instance, a cease and desist notice is a primary method to request the removal of defamatory or unlawful content. If ignored, it paves the way for court action. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public Charitable Trust Thr Trustee Mahesh Gupta VS Jitender Bagga - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1334
Under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, intermediaries must remove unlawful content upon actual notice from the affected party. NIRMALJIT SINGH NARULA vs INDIJOBS AT HUBPAGES.COM & ORS
Tips for effective notices:- Specify the URL, content description, and legal basis (e.g., defamation under IPC Sections 499/500 or copyright under Copyright Act, 1957).- Set a reasonable deadline (e.g., 24-48 hours).- Send via email, registered post, and platform grievance mechanisms.
Platforms are bound by Rule 3(3) and 3(4) of the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011:- Rule 3(3): Observe due diligence and not knowingly host unlawful content.- Rule 3(4): Act within 36 hours of actual knowledge to disable/remove content. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public Charitable Trust Thr Trustee Mahesh Gupta VS Jitender Bagga - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1334
Failure to comply can strip safe harbor protection, making platforms liable. In copyright disputes, courts have directed intermediaries to block URLs upon notice. For example, defendants confirmed that the offending channels have been deleted. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. Vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3046
In a notable case, an intermediary was ordered to remove infringing content within 36 hours of notice and maintain records of views and ad revenue for damages calculation. The court emphasized harmonious reading of IT Act Section 79 and Copyright Act Section 51. Myspace Inc. VS Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4529
Process in practice:1. Submit complaint via platform's portal.2. Provide evidence of unlawfulness.3. Follow up if no action within 36 hours.
If voluntary removal fails, seek judicial relief. Courts routinely issue takedown orders for defamatory or infringing content. In one instance, the court directed the Department of Telecommunications to block infringing URLs within 48 hours. Doctutorials Edutech Private Limited VS Telegram FZ-LLC - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1959
For copyright, plaintiffs have secured injunctions against unauthorized uploads. A teacher's handwritten notes uploaded online led to rejection of dismissal pleas, affirming potential copyright ownership in educational materials. Prem Prakash Dhawan VS Aman Dhattarwal - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2427
Settlement agreements also facilitate removal. Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, courts approve deals where parties agree to delete content and withdraw allegations, including all necessary steps to ensure their removal from public access. CENTRAL ELECTRONICS LIMITED vs LIVE MEDIA & PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4266
However, courts apply caution: Pre-publication injunctions require a strong prima facie case, especially for electronic media. In a web series case, relief was denied as the plaintiff failed to prove malicious content and delayed action against the source book. Sushil Ansal VS Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1920
Types of orders:- Injunctions: Prohibit further publication and mandate deletion.- Takedown directives: Specific URL blocks.- John Doe orders: Against unknown publishers.
Copyright Infringement: Owners can demand removal under Section 55 of the Copyright Act. Intermediaries must act on notice, as an intermediary is not liable for secondary copyright infringement... if it does not have actual knowledge. Courts may order URL blocks. Doctutorials Edutech Private Limited VS Telegram FZ-LLC - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1959Myspace Inc. VS Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4529
Defamation: Content must be proven malicious. Interrogatories in suits help clarify claims but are limited to relevant facts. Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. VS DB Mobile Entertainment - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2531
Exceptions and Limitations:- Platforms protected if they act expeditiously. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public Charitable Trust Thr Trustee Mahesh Gupta VS Jitender Bagga - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1334- Freedom of speech may protect opinions unless palpably false. Sushil Ansal VS Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1920- Third-party content requires proof of unlawfulness.
In regulatory contexts, courts decline to create new bodies for content oversight, respecting separation of powers. NEHA KAPOOR VS MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING - 2023 Supreme(Del) 300
Deleting published online content in India is feasible through legal notices, intermediary compliance under the IT Act, and court orders. Start with a cease and desist, escalate if needed, and leverage precedents for stronger cases. While platforms must respond within 36 hours, judicial enforcement ensures results. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public Charitable Trust Thr Trustee Mahesh Gupta VS Jitender Bagga - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1334Doctutorials Edutech Private Limited VS Telegram FZ-LLC - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1959
Key Takeaways:- Act promptly with formal notices.- Know the 36-hour rule for intermediaries.- Courts back takedowns for proven unlawful content.- Always gather evidence.
This framework empowers affected parties, but outcomes depend on specifics. For personalized guidance, consult a legal expert.
#DeleteOnlineContent, #ITActIndia, #ContentTakedown
It is relevant to note that respondent No.13 in his affidavit dated 18.07.2023 stated that he had not himself published/republished any offending content, giving rise to the cause of action against him. ... Hence, we close the proceedings while directing respondent No.13 to delete the re-tweets, if not already taken down. 12.We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.Arvind Nigam who was appointed as Amicus vide order dated 29.10.2018. 13.
Under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act,2000, defendant No.2 is under an obligation to remove unlawful content if it receives actual notice from the affected party of any illegal content being circulated/published through its service. ... As per clause I(1) of the Acceptable Use policy published on defendant No.5 website, the registrant of the website, defendant No .2 is under an obligation not to publish any defamatory content on the website. ... However, prima facie, it appears that despite of notice in....
Under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act,2000, defendant No.2 is under an obligation to remove unlawful content if it receives actual notice from the affected party of any illegal content being circulated/published through its service. ... The said policy entitles the Registrar in its sole discretion to suspend or terminate the services ,restrict , or delete content or take other action incase of violation by a registrant. ... As per clause I(1) of the Acceptable Use policy publis....
The 2nd defendant has not published any content under the terms of service, uploading of content in violation of terms of service, which may result in removal of such content and further repeat violation could lead to termination of users Youtube Account. ... The plaintiff published Article in the Tamil News Paper dated 03.06.2021 and the original news item published on 10.07.2021. The above said evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the alleged defamation video have not been denied by the d....
(ii) Temporary injunction as prayed for in IA No.2 is partly granted only against Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 is directed to remove, take down, and COMAP No.73 of 2025 delete defamatory content published by Defendant No.1 on the social media platform Instagram operated ... Additionally, Defendant No. 1 is directed to take down, disable, and delete any further/other defamatory content in relation to the plaintiff's registered trademarks products, during the pendency of the suit. ... publ....
Even going by the case of defendant no. 2 -“Content uploaded on the websiteindianexpress.com marked “ARCHIVAL” is stale content, and if marked PREMIUM is not accessible to any ordinary reader. It is behind a paywall.” If that be so, the interim relief granted, will in no way affect their interest. ... The learned counsel would submit that the first and second news reports were published on 27.10.2023 and 19.08.2024 respectively. However, the suit was filed only on 06.10.2025, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period. ... Further....
CPC for taking on record the Settlement Agreement executed and signed between Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendants on 21.02.2025 and to delete Plaintiff No. 2 from the array of the parties. Along with copy of the application, Settlement Agreement is also appended. ... all necessary steps to ensure their removal from public access, including but not limited to, deletion from any online platforms or publications where they were previously published. ... Singh, or their successor companies/ entities or the individual constituents, while being a part of Second Part....
The plaintiff's position that the Bonnard (supra) principle cannot apply under all circumstances, especially when the content which is to be published or disseminated through electronic media or the internet requires closer scrutiny. New technology undoubtedly poses new challenges. ... It was held that unless it is established at the outset that the offending content is malicious and palpably false, an injunction should not be issued. ... Unless it is demonstrated at the threshold that the offending content is malicious ....
The plaintiff's’ are owners and licence holders of the original literary and artistic work and the same are being reproduced, published, uploaded and shared illegally by the defendants no. 2 to 15 in an unauthorised manner. ... The magazines mentioned at serial nos. v, vi and vii have been licensed to the plaintiff no.1 by their original owners and include plaintiff no.1's original editorial content. 9. ... On the said date, a statement was made on behalf of defendant no.1 that the offending channels have been deleted, and in case any of the channels were....
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the report of the High Level Committee published in G.O.Ms.No.398 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 01.12.2008. ... It is submitted that the petitioner does not had subscribe to the view of the High Level Committee i.e, recommendations made therein, therefore the petitioner's name should be removed from the committee report which has been published in the gazette. ... 9.Th....
(i) All content transmitted or published or exhibited by a publisher of online curated content shall be classified, based on the nature and type of content, into the following rating categories, namely:
1 to 3 failed to comply with the order inasmuch as, they have failed to remove/delete/take down the infringing content. In accordance with the directions of this Court, the plaintiff sent the list of URLs containing the infringing contents to the defendant No.4 and its counsel. However, to the surprise of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 4 replied to the email sent by the plaintiff's counsel, inter alia, stating that the list of URLs shared contains huge number of URLs that have totally unrelated content, not subject matter of the suit.
The placement of advertisements alongside uploaded content, resulted in profits which prima facie led to “permitting for profit any place” under Section 51(a)(ii). The single judge surmised that the kind of advertisement displayed before a movie clip - keeping the user busy till the actual content played which required MySpace’s complicity. The learned Single Judge also held that MySpace had created a “space” and allowed uploading of content by users, which was saved it in its database and collected a limited license to add, modify and delete content for that purpose.
Hence, based on this the defendants seek leave of the court to deliver the following interrogatories:- “I. How many licenses/authorizations does the plaintiff have from content owners for use of their music for retail business? Please provide names of all licensors for which the plaintiff holds licenses and dates since when the plaintiff acquired these licenses.
Similarly, the iodised salt, even as per the report, was in a pre-packed condition bought from a reputed company. I do not know how the petitioner was made responsible for lesser iodine content. I am also unable to understand as to why the Food Safety Officer did not take a food item already prepared by the petitioner for testing, but took turmeric powder, water, used cooking oil and packed salt, for testing. Insofar as cooking oil is concerned, I have already indicated that instead of taking oil intended to be used for cooking, the Food Safety Officer had taken oil which w....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
