The Delhi High Court has raised an important preliminary question on whether social media platforms can suspend or delete user accounts merely because of copyright strikes. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has directed Meta, Google and Telegram to specifically address the issue in their replies.
The question before the Court is whether such suspension and subsequent takedown based on copyright strikes violates the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and the Delhi High Court in MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Limited.
Background Of The Case
The issue arose in a suit filed by digital content creator Saurabh Maurya, who operates online under the name “IITian Trader”. He approached the High Court after his Instagram account was suspended following copyright strikes against his posts.
Maurya alleged that the copyright enforcement mechanism was being misused through what he described as an extortion racket. His case also raises questions about how intermediaries decide whether content should be removed or an account should be suspended.
Appearing for Maurya, Senior Advocate Diya Kapur argued that the standard procedure followed by social media platforms for copyright strikes requires closer scrutiny under the Information Technology Act and the Copyright Act.
Court’s Observation
Kapur submitted that an intermediary should not be permitted to suspend an account solely on the basis of a copyright strike while claiming protection under the safe-harbour framework.
She argued that the existing practice may not be consistent with the principles in Shreya Singhal and MySpace. “How does an intermediary take a call to remove the channel, videos?” she asked, while highlighting the possibility of copyright enforcement mechanisms being misused by persons claiming to own copyrighted material.
She further suggested that the MySpace ruling should be clarified so that copyright strikes are sought only by a registered copyright owner or a person declared by a court to be the copyright owner.
Meta’s Response
Meta’s counsel Varun Pathak informed the Court that 13 copyright strikes issued against Maurya’s account had been found to be fake. The strikes were consequently reversed and the account was restored.
Meta also assured the Court that, during the interim period, Maurya’s content would not be removed on the basis of copyright strikes, subject to him providing material showing that any such strike was fake.
Court’s Decision
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani framed the preliminary issue concerning whether suspension, deletion or takedown of a social media account through a copyright-strike system violates the principles laid down in Shreya Singhal and MySpace.
The Court directed Meta, Google and Telegram to specifically address the issue in their replies to the suit and interim injunction application.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 24.
