The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition seeking restoration of a YouTube channel that was removed after alleged copyright strikes. The Court held that the dispute stemmed from a contractual relationship between the petitioner and YouTube, making it unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Swati alias Smriti Negi, approached the High Court seeking directions to restore her YouTube channel, revive the deleted content, and remove the copyright strikes recorded against the account. She also sought directions to the authorities to address her grievance against YouTube.
According to the petition, the channel was deleted after three alleged copyright strikes without giving her prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Court's Observation
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari observed that the relief sought could not be granted through a writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with YouTube governed by specific terms and conditions. If the platform concluded that those terms had been violated, it could take action in accordance with that agreement.
The bench observed,
"Public law remedy under Article 226 is certainly not a remedy available for resolving such dispute."
The Court further explained that disputes arising out of contractual obligations are ordinarily to be pursued through remedies available under the applicable law rather than through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Decision
Finding that the controversy was essentially contractual in nature, the Uttarakhand High Court disposed of the writ petition.
However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue any other legal remedy available under law for resolution of the dispute.
Case Details
Case Title: Swati Alias Smriti Negi v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WPMS No. 2267 of 2026
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Decision Date: August 4, 2026
