Back
Punjab HC Issues Notice: Can AAP Weaponize Copyright Strikes to Bury Critical Journalism?
In a significant pushback against alleged digital censorship, the on , issued notices to the , the , and others in a petition by independent journalist Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal. Justice Jagmohan Bansal granted the petitioner liberty to pursue Meta's internal grievance mechanisms while the respondents prepare their replies. At stake: the takedown of Dhaliwal's popular Facebook pages amid claims they violated intellectual property rights (IPR) by featuring Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann's publicly available photos.
Unearthing Irregularities, Facing Digital Blackout
Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal, a freelance social media journalist with pages "Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal" (over 3.24 lakh followers, 3,200+ posts) and "Talk with Rattan" (1.94 lakh followers), specializes in public interest reporting. His troubles began on , during on-ground coverage in Kaljharani village, Bathinda district, where he exposed alleged misuse of public funds. This drew public criticism from the state government, including direct mentions by CM Mann during a political address on October 12.
Tensions escalated with a , interview of an RTI activist on Rs 785 crore spent on advertisements. By February 2026, multiple IPR complaints—traced to 13 different email IDs linked to —targeted his content. Facebook ( ) removed his main page on , notifying him on . Even routine posts, like one noting CM Mann's appearance at Akal Takht Sahib secretariat, were struck down as IPR violations.
Dhaliwal alleges these were retaliatory "false IPR claims" to silence his exposés, arguing a chief minister's public image cannot be privatized to throttle journalism.
Petitioner's Battle Cry: IPR as a Tool for Political Vendetta
Dhaliwal's under seeks quashing of all punitive actions, restoration of pages with full follower base and content, reasoned orders on his appeals, and a bar on AAP from filing IPR claims over government or public domain material.
Key contentions:
- Strikes stemmed solely from using CM Mann's photos or news about him in legitimate reporting.
- Meta failed to provide reasoned responses despite appeals, imposing strikes and suppressions.
- This creates an "atmosphere of intimidation," chilling press freedom by holding journalism "hostage to political sensitivity."
- Public officials' images in official duties aren't private property.
News reports highlight CM Mann's prior public jabs at Dhaliwal, framing the strikes as discomfort from his critical coverage.
Respondents on Notice, No Counter-Arguments Yet
Represented by
and team, the petitioner faced
for the Union,
, and
for Punjab. Respondents accepted notice, seeking time to file replies and argue. No substantive defenses were presented at this stage, but the court noted the petition's claims of
"coordinated complaints by party members and hired professionals."
Court's Interim Lifeline: Grievance Channels Opened
Justice Bansal's order is measured but pointed:
"In the meantime, the petitioner is at liberty to approach Grievance Officer as well as Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority may adjudicate his appeal in accordance with law."
Notices are returnable . While not ruling on merits, the directive underscores platforms' obligations under to handle grievances transparently—potentially pressuring Meta.
No precedents were cited in this , but the petition invokes constitutional alarms over (free speech) and against IPR misuse.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On the Plea
:
"The petitioner... is seeking setting aside of punitive actions taken against his Facebook pages... and restoration of his pages along with contents therein."
- Timeline Acknowledgment : References Dhaliwal's reporting on (fund misuse), (RTI interview), February strikes, takedown.
- Procedural Fairness : Explicit liberty to internal remedies signals courts won't bypass platforms' processes lightly.
Broader Ripples: Safeguarding the Digital Press?
This interim step spotlights rising tensions between politics, platforms, and the press. Success could mandate reasoned takedown orders and deter false claims, protecting journalists from "digital erasure." Failure risks emboldening similar tactics, where public figures claim IPR over their images to evade scrutiny.
As replies loom, the case tests if India's courts will shield online journalism from what Dhaliwal calls "constitutionally absurd" silencing—ensuring criticism doesn't vanish behind copyright facades.
