Social media channels play an important role in the creation, distribution and commercialisation of digital content. As more content creators rely on these platforms for their livelihood, removing content after copyright complaints can have considerable consequences. Such cases also lead to discussions on the authority of private intermediaries to decide whether a creator’s content infringes IP rights and the remedies available to affected users.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides the framework for electronic communications and online intermediaries in India. Section 2(1)(w) defines an intermediary as a person who, on behalf of another person, receives, stores or transmits electronic records or provides services relating to such records. This includes social media channels operating in India. Further, the IT Rules, 2021, lay down the due diligence obligations for intermediaries under Rule 3(1)(b)(iv), which requires intermediaries to make reasonable efforts to ensure that users do not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share information that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other rights. The IT Rules also provide a grievance redressal mechanism through which users may challenge actions taken by intermediaries, including the removal of content and restrictions on access to their accounts.
In Anmol Jain vs Union of India and Others (W.P. No. 4503 of 2026), the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). By order dated September 17, 2026, the Division Bench upheld the validity of the provision, recognising the authority of social media intermediaries to remove content that infringes IP rights, subject to the grievance redressal mechanism under the Rules.
Background of the Case
The petitioner operated an Instagram account with approximately 39,000 followers, which he built through his efforts since 2019, and it became a substantial source of livelihood as a digital content creator. On July 6, 2025, Instagram removed three posts uploaded by the petitioner after receiving copyright infringement complaints. The petitioner claimed the posts were removed without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
On July 25, 2025, a complaint was submitted alleging that an unidentified person was misusing Instagram’s copyright policy by making false infringement complaints. In response, the petitioner was directed to pursue his grievance through the platform’s prescribed mechanism. On August 25, 2025, Instagram informed the petitioner that another post, dated August 16, 2025, had been removed following a third-party copyright complaint. The dispute also involved the alleged suspension or deactivation of his Instagram account, for which he sought reinstatement on August 31, 2025. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the IT Rules, 2021.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner argued that Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) allowed a private social media platform to determine whether content infringed patents, trademarks, copyrights or other proprietary rights. It was argued that resolution of IP disputes falls within the jurisdiction of competent courts, and such authority cannot be given to a private intermediary. It was further contended that removing his content and suspending or deactivating his account without an opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner challenged the provision as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that Instagram’s actions were arbitrary and unlawful, affecting his freedom of speech and expression and ability to earn a livelihood through digital content creation.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv), finding no substance in the petitioner’s arguments. The Court observed that Instagram qualifies as an intermediary under the IT Act and is therefore subject to the due diligence obligations under the IT Rules, 2021. These obligations require intermediaries to regulate content hosted on their platforms as per the applicable legal framework.
The Court held that although Instagram is a private entity, its status as an intermediary requires it to manage and regulate content. Therefore, where content infringes patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other proprietary rights, the intermediary can remove it from its platform. The Court also looked at the safeguards available to users under the IT Rules, 2021. Reference was made to Rule 3(2), which requires intermediaries to have a grievance redressal mechanism and appoint a Grievance Officer. Under this mechanism, complaints must be acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days of receiving them. Further, Rule 3A provides an appellate remedy before the Grievance Appellate Committee. A person aggrieved by the decision of a Grievance Officer, or whose grievance has not been resolved within the prescribed period, may file an appeal within 30 days.
The Court also referred to the remedies available under the IT Act for examining grievances from the actions of intermediaries. Highlighting these safeguards, the Court held that sufficient opportunities had been provided to complainants and users to seek redressal against the actions of intermediaries. The presence of such mechanisms was an important factor in rejecting the petitioner’s constitutional challenge.
The Court further noted that where the legal framework allows an intermediary to operate an online platform, it also recognises the intermediary’s authority to manage and control the platform as per its prescribed obligations. Finding no reason to interfere with the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv), the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Conclusion
The decision recognises the legal authority of social media intermediaries to take action against content that infringes IP rights in compliance with their due diligence obligations under the IT Rules, 2021. It also highlights the importance of the grievance redressal framework in protecting the interests of users affected by content removal or account restrictions.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta