Back
Hears 's Safe Harbour Claim in Ravi Belagere Book Piracy Case
E-commerce giant has pressed the to grant it under , in a case involving the alleged sale of pirated copies of late journalist Ravi Belagere’s novel Heli Hogu Kaarana through its platform. The company argued that it merely acts as a neutral connecting independent sellers with buyers and cannot be held liable for copyright violations committed by those third‑party sellers.
The submissions were made before a single bench of the by senior advocate , representing . The court is hearing a petition filed by the company seeking to quash an FIR registered at in Bengaluru. The FIR was lodged by Bhavana Belagere, the daughter of the deceased journalist, who claims copyright over the novel. It invokes , which deal with and its penalties.
At the heart of the case is the question of when an online marketplace can be held responsible for unlawful acts committed by third‑party vendors. ’s counsel submitted that the company falls squarely within the statutory definition of an “” under the IT Act and is therefore entitled to immunity from civil and criminal liability, provided it satisfies the due‑diligence conditions prescribed by law.
’s Case: Platform, Not Seller
Chouta elaborated on ’s business model, drawing a crucial distinction between inventory‑based operators and marketplace platforms. “We provide a platform for a seller and a buyer,” he submitted, emphasising that does not determine the prices of books listed by independent sellers. The seller sets the price, and ’s role is confined to facilitating the transaction. This, he argued, distinguishes the company from inventory‑based e‑commerce entities that purchase and stock goods and therefore exercise greater control over listings.
“We have done ,” Chouta asserted, adding that had complied with all the requirements of Section 79(2) of the IT Act, which lists the conditions for . He also pointed to Section 79(3)(b), which provides that an loses its immunity only if it fails to remove or disable access to unlawful material after receiving from a court order or government notification. In the absence of such an order, there is no obligation to take down listings, he argued.
Nevertheless, submitted that it had proactively removed the listings of the 12 sellers accused of selling pirated copies as soon as the alleged infringement was brought to its notice. The company also provided the investigating officer with the names and details of those sellers, further demonstrating its cooperation with authorities.
Reliance on Precedents
To buttress its case, ’s counsel relied on a series of landmark decisions. In , the held that intermediaries are not required to take down content on their own volition; they must await a lawful order. The decisions in and were cited for the proposition that an cannot be held liable merely because third‑party content is accessible through its platform. The ’s judgment concerning was also pressed into service, reinforcing the same principle.
“There is no basis to prosecute the company without a specific allegation that it breached its statutory due‑diligence obligations,” Chouta argued. He contended that the FIR against is an because it fails to allege any direct involvement or knowledge on ’s part.
Impact on E‑Commerce Platforms
The case is being closely watched by the e‑commerce industry, as it touches on the core liability framework for online marketplaces in India. Section 79 of the IT Act has long served as a bulwark against frivolous litigation targeting intermediaries, but the provision has been increasingly tested in the context of copyright and trademark infringement. The ’s eventual decision could clarify the extent to which platforms like , , and —all of which are named in the FIR (though only is currently before the court)—must police third‑party listings.
The and other trade bodies have previously raised concerns that excessive liability would force platforms to adopt aggressive pre‑screening measures, potentially harming small sellers who depend on these marketplaces. On the other hand, copyright owners argue that the current safe‑harbour regime shields intermediaries even when they turn a blind eye to blatant piracy.
In the present case, the court was told that operates under a “marketplace” model and not an “inventory” model. This distinction may be pivotal. If the court accepts that exercises no control over the pricing or supply chain of sellers, the would likely be upheld. If, however, the court finds that ’s algorithms or recommendation systems give it a degree of control or knowledge, the immunity could be eroded.
Context of the FIR
The complaint by Bhavana Belagere alleges that unauthorised copies of Heli Hogu Kaarana , a novel by her father, were being sold on multiple e‑commerce platforms. The FIR was registered in early 2023, and the had already stayed further proceedings on pending the outcome of the present petition. That stay remains in force.
The case also highlights the growing tension between copyright enforcement and the liability framework. While the IT Act was designed to foster a free and open internet, the Copyright Act imposes strict liability on those who . The interplay between these two statutes is likely to be a recurring theme in Indian jurisprudence.
What’s Next?
The bench reserved judgment after hearing counsel for both sides. Advocate Chouta concluded by submitting that had fully complied with its due‑diligence obligations and that no case for was made out. The respondent, represented by the state’s counsel, argued that the mere facilitation of sales—particularly through a sophisticated platform that profits from each transaction—ought to attract some degree of accountability.
The High Court’s decision, when it arrives, will have ramifications that extend far beyond the facts of this case. With the rapid growth of online marketplaces, the precise contours of liability remain a live legal issue. For now, ’s reliance on the safe‑harbour provision appears to be a strong shield—but whether it will withstand the Copyright Act’s sword remains to be seen.
