The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has affirmed the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, marking a significant judicial confirmation of the regulatory framework governing digital content moderation. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia dismissed a writ petition filed by a social media content creator, Anmol Jain, who had challenged the ability of private platforms to unilaterally remove content based on allegations of intellectual property infringement without prior judicial intervention.

The petitioner, who operated a popular Instagram account under the handle ‘memenasha’ with a following of approximately 39,000, argued that the summary removal of his posts on multiple occasions throughout 2025 violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Jain contended that Meta Platforms Inc., the owner of Instagram, should not be vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine complex questions of copyright, trademark, or patent infringement, asserting that such adjudicatory functions remain the sole preserve of a court of law. He further alleged that the platform’s failure to provide a prior hearing before disabling his content or suspending his account breached the principles of natural justice.

In their assessment, the judges addressed the core legal relationship between digital intermediaries and their users. The Court clarified that social media platforms, as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, function under specific statutory obligations that require them to exercise due diligence in monitoring and regulating the information hosted on their digital infrastructures. The ruling underscored that the government, in drafting the 2021 Rules, sought to balance the growth of the digital economy with the necessity of protecting intellectual property rights.

The bench explicitly rejected the petitioner's assertion that the rules were ultra vires . Justice Vivek Rusia, writing for the bench, emphasized that the regulatory framework for intermediaries is not a blank check for private entities, but rather a structured system governed by law. The court noted: "The respondent no.4 may be a private party, but comes under the definition of ' intermediary ' under section 2(w) of Information Technology Act; therefore, this intermediary has been given a responsibility to maintain due diligence ."

This due diligence, the Court reasoned, includes the explicit mandate to ensure that platforms do not host content that infringes upon patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary rights. By allowing the platform to remove non-compliant content, the Rule ensures that the intermediary can mitigate its own legal exposure while protecting the rights of intellectual property holders.

Addressing the petitioner’s grievance regarding the lack of a hearing, the bench pointed toward the comprehensive three-tier grievance redressal mechanism integrated into the IT Rules. The Court highlighted that the 2021 framework is designed to provide users with a clear and timely remedy. Under Rule 3(2), an intermediary is mandated to appoint a Grievance Officer, who must acknowledge a user complaint within 24 hours and resolve the issue within 15 days. Furthermore, Rule 3A introduces the Grievance Appellate Committee as a second-tier oversight body for users dissatisfied with the outcome of their initial grievance.

The judgment stressed that these statutory avenues provide the necessary procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary action by private platforms. The Court stated: "Enough safeguard has been given to the complainant as well as user to submit his grievance before the Grievance Officer and thereafter to the Appellate Committee." By providing this structured appeal process, the legislative intent was to ensure that aggrieved users, such as the petitioner, have a standard channel to contest takedown actions rather than necessitating immediate access to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for every instance of content removal.

The petitioner’s contention that the platform’s actions violated his freedom of speech and expression was examined against the backdrop of the platform’s right to manage its own space. The court reiterated that when a platform is granted the status of an intermediary by statute, it is simultaneously conferred the authority to manage its digital resource, provided it adheres to the guidelines established by the Union of India. Consequently, the delegation of content moderation tasks to the platform was found to be a valid exercise of statutory power.

The ruling is expected to have a lasting impact on how digital creators navigate copyright disputes in the future. By confirming the legitimacy of the takedown procedures initiated by private intermediaries, the court has signaled that creators must exhaust the internal grievance mechanisms provided by platforms and the subsequent administrative appeals process before seeking judicial intervention. The decision effectively reinforces the shift toward institutionalized, platform-led dispute resolution for intellectual property issues in the digital domain.

For the petitioner, this outcome marks the formal closure of his challenge to the existing regulatory architecture. His argument that private entities are incapable of adjudicating proprietary rights was countered by the Court’s observation that the platform’s role is primarily that of an intermediary tasked with ensuring compliance with its own terms of service and the prevailing IT Rules, rather than acting as a traditional civil court.

With the dismissal of the petition, the legal position remains that intermediaries are legally empowered to take proactive measures against content that allegedly infringes intellectual property. The judiciary has effectively signaled that so long as the prescribed grievance redressal mechanisms are accessible and functional, the regulatory framework of 2021 remains a valid exercise of governance, ensuring that the digital environment remains accountable while providing platforms the tools to enforce proprietary rights. The matter concluded with the Court declining to interfere with the operation of the Rule, solidifying the operational status quo for social media intermediaries and digital content creators across the jurisdiction.