The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which allow social media platforms to remove content that allegedly infringes copyright and other intellectual property rights. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia delivered the order on September 17, 2026.
Background
In Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Jain operated an Instagram account named “memexnasha,” which had approximately 39,000 followers and served as a source of livelihood. He approached the Court after Instagram removed several posts following third-party copyright complaints and subsequently suspended his account. He alleged that the platform had acted without providing prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner argued that the provision improperly empowered a private platform to determine intellectual property disputes, which he contended should be decided by courts. He also challenged the action on grounds of freedom of expression and constitutional protections.
The Bench rejected the challenge, observing that Instagram falls within the definition of an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and must comply with the statutory framework governing such platforms.
The Court observed,
“The respondent No.4 may be a private party, but comes under the definition of ‘intermediary’ under section 2(w) of Information Technology Act.”
It further explained that the Rules impose due-diligence obligations on intermediaries, including measures against content that infringes copyright, trademarks or other proprietary rights.
The Bench also highlighted the available grievance-redressal mechanisms, including complaints before the platform's Grievance Officer and appeals to the Grievance Appellate Committee.
The Court noted,
“So 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.”
Finding no grounds to invalidate the challenged provision, the Bench held that the statutory framework permits intermediaries to manage and control their platforms subject to the applicable rules.
The Court concluded,
“Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2026
