Back
MP High Court Reserves Verdict, Tells Creator 'Don't Use If Not Satisfied'
The on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by social media content creator Anmol Jain, who challenged the removal of his posts and subsequent suspension of his account over alleged . During the hearing, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia made several striking oral observations, including that the platform owner was entitled to remove content and that the creator should simply not use if dissatisfied with its policies. The court also noted that the petitioner’s use of had acquired a , diminishing its .
The case, which raises fundamental questions about the power of private intermediaries to adjudicate copyright disputes without judicial oversight, has drawn attention from legal practitioners and digital rights advocates alike. The petition specifically challenges , arguing that the provision grants arbitrary powers to platforms to remove user content based on allegations of intellectual property violations. The petitioner contends that such disputes involve questions of fact that must be determined by a trial court or other competent judicial authority, not by a private entity.
Background: The Creator’s Battle with
Anmol Jain operates the account '@memenasha', which boasts approximately 39,000 followers. According to the petition, Jain has been creating digital content since 2019 and relies on his social media presence for his livelihood, earning income through advertising and collaborative campaigns. The account had become a substantial source of his earnings.
The dispute began on , when sent Jain two emails informing him that posts uploaded on May 2 and , had been removed after third-party complaints alleging . advised him to approach the complainants directly to resolve the issue. Two days later, on July 6, three further posts uploaded on April 3, 17, and 24 were removed on the same grounds. In total, five posts were taken down without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Jain filed a grievance with on , expressing suspicion that the platform’s copyright-testing mechanism was being misused to launch a "cyber-attack" against his account. He claimed that after contacting one of the complainants, he discovered through their chats that the complainant had lodged copyright complaints on questionable grounds. He submitted these chat records to and requested that his complaint be assigned to an individual for resolution.
The situation escalated on , when informed Jain that another post uploaded on August 16 had been removed following a third-party copyright complaint. Shortly thereafter, his account was suspended. Jain immediately appealed the suspension at around 8:50 AM on August 25, and separately reiterated his allegation that 's copyright mechanism was being misused. subsequently informed him that his account had been deactivated. He sent multiple emails seeking restoration—on August 31, September 21, , and —but his account was not restored. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
The Legal Challenge: Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) Under Scrutiny
At the heart of the petition is a challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the IT Rules, 2021. This provision requires intermediaries to remove or disable access to content that violates intellectual property rights upon receiving a complaint. The petitioner argues that the rule delegates to private entities, effectively allowing platforms to act as judge, jury, and executioner in copyright disputes.
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocates and , submitted that the dispute concerning involves questions of fact that require judicial adjudication by a trial court or other competent court. They contended that such factual disputes cannot be determined by a private entity such as a social media platform. The petition further argued that the rule violates by permitting removal of content without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner’s counsel also highlighted that ’s copyright-testing mechanism is prone to misuse, as evidenced by the complainant’s own admission that the complaints were lodged on questionable grounds. They submitted that the platform failed to conduct a proper investigation and instead mechanically removed content based on unverified third-party complaints.
Court’s Oral Observations: A Blunt Message
The Division Bench’s oral remarks during the hearing provided a glimpse into its thinking. The court told the petitioner that
, as the owner of
, had the right to remove content.
"
is the owner of
. They can do it. If you are not satisfied with their services, don't use it,"
the bench observed.
Noting that the petitioner had been earning his livelihood through his social media presence, the court further remarked,
"You are earning from
, isn't it. So it becomes commercial value for you; it no more remains a right."
This observation underscores a critical distinction: when speech is monetized, it may lose its character as a fundamental right and instead be treated as a commercial activity subject to the platform’s terms of service.
The bench also stated that the intermediary is the owner of the platform and is entitled to delete the petitioner’s post because the petitioner had not paid "lease" to keep his content on the intermediary’s platform permanently. This analogy likens the relationship between a user and a social media platform to a landlord-tenant arrangement, where the platform retains ultimate control over the property.
Legal Analysis: Implications for and
The case raises several significant legal issues. First, it tests the limits of under , which provides to platforms that comply with the IT Rules. If platforms are permitted to unilaterally remove content based on copyright complaints without any judicial oversight, it could lead to over-removal and on legitimate speech.
Second, the petitioner’s argument that copyright disputes require judicial adjudication is well-founded. involves complex questions of , , and —issues that are best resolved by courts with expertise in intellectual property law. Delegating this determination to private platforms risks inconsistent and erroneous decisions.
Third, the court’s observation about the commercial nature of the petitioner’s speech touches upon a nuanced area of jurisprudence. While the has held that is entitled to protection under , it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The court’s remark suggests that when speech is used for profit, the platform’s right to control its property may outweigh the user’s claims.
However, the court’s oral statement that the user has no right to be on the platform unless they pay "lease" may be overly simplistic. The relationship between users and platforms is governed by terms of service, which are often adhesive contracts. The user’s reliance on the platform for livelihood creates a dependency that the law should recognize. Moreover, the right to is not contingent on payment; even enjoys .
Impact on Social Media Creators and Platform Governance
If the High Court ultimately upholds the platform’s right to remove content without judicial scrutiny, it could have far-reaching consequences for content creators who rely on social media for their income. The lack of in copyright takedown procedures leaves creators vulnerable to malicious complaints and arbitrary enforcement. The petitioner’s case illustrates how a competitor or disgruntled party could misuse the copyright complaint mechanism to silence a creator.
The decision will also influence how platforms design their content moderation systems. A ruling in favor of the petitioner could compel platforms to implement more robust grievance mechanisms, including human review and appeals processes. Conversely, a ruling favoring the platform could embolden intermediaries to take down content at the slightest allegation, without fear of legal repercussions.
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the tension between and . The IT Rules, 2021, were intended to create a safer online ecosystem, but they may have inadvertently granted intermediaries unchecked power. The outcome of this petition could prompt legislative or judicial clarification on the scope of intermediary powers.
Conclusion: A Verdict to Watch
The ’s reserved verdict is eagerly awaited by the legal community and digital rights advocates. The case touches upon fundamental questions of , , and the role of private entities in adjudicating rights. While the court’s oral remarks suggest a leaning towards , the final judgment could provide important guidance on the limits of intermediary power under Indian law.
As the petitioner continues to seek restoration of his account and livelihood, the broader implications for social media governance remain at stake. Legal professionals will be closely monitoring the outcome, which could shape the future of content regulation in India’s digital ecosystem.
