Case at a Glance
A meme-page creator with about 39,000 Instagram followers saw several posts removed on third-party copyright complaints and his account suspended, without notice or hearing. He challenged Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as unconstitutional, arguing that a private platform cannot decide intellectual property disputes. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the platform is an intermediary with due-diligence duties, that the Rules provide adequate safeguards through the Grievance Officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee, and that remedies against the platform’s action lie under the IT Act.
The petitioner runs an Instagram meme account that, he said, had about 39,000 followers built up since 2019 and was a substantial source of his livelihood as a digital content creator. On 6 July 2025, posts dated 3, 17 and 24 April 2025 were removed without prior notice. On 25 July 2025 he complained that someone was misusing the platform’s copyright policy through false complaints and was told to use the grievance mechanism. On 25 August 2025 another post was removed on a third-party copyright complaint, and his account was suspended; he appealed and sought reinstatement on 31 August 2025.
He then approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the 2021 Rules is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, and challenged the removal and suspension as arbitrary and in breach of natural justice. His central argument was that the rule effectively entrusts a private platform with adjudicating intellectual property disputes, a function belonging to courts. The Union of India was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the IT Intermediary Rules, 2021, which requires platforms to act against content infringing copyright and other proprietary rights, unconstitutional because it lets a private platform remove a user’s content and suspend accounts on third-party complaints?
Due Diligence, Grievance Officers and an Appellate Committee
Writing for the Bench, Justice Vivek Rusia held that the platform is an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that the 2021 Rules, framed under Section 87 of the Act, impose due-diligence obligations on intermediaries, including ensuring that users do not host content infringing any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights. As an intermediary, the platform “certainly has a right to remove such post/content”, and it was “rightly given the right to manage and control the platform.”
The Court pointed to the safeguards built into the Rules: under Rule 3(2), a Grievance Officer must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days, with a shorter timeline for certain removal complaints, and under Rule 3A a user can appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days. It concluded that “enough safeguard has been given to the complainant as well as user” and that “the provision cannot be said to be ultra vires.” As for the petitioner’s grievance against the specific removals and suspension, the Court held that “the remedy is available under the provisions of the Information Technology Act”, referring to Chapter IX (penalties, compensation and adjudication) and Chapter X (appeals) of the Act.
What the Court Actually Held
- Instagram’s operator is an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act and is bound by the due-diligence obligations in the 2021 Rules.
- An intermediary has the right to remove content that infringes copyright or other proprietary rights and to manage and control its platform.
- Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) is not ultra vires; the Grievance Officer mechanism under Rule 3(2) and the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A provide sufficient safeguards for users and complainants.
- The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner’s grievance about removal and suspension is to be pursued through the remedies under the IT Act.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Content creators who earn from social media frequently face takedowns on copyright complaints; this ruling clarifies that a constitutional challenge to the rule will not succeed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
- It directs users to the statutory route: the platform’s Grievance Officer, then the Grievance Appellate Committee.
- It confirms that platforms can act on third-party copyright complaints as part of their due-diligence duties.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Content Creators
- If your post is removed or account suspended, complain to the platform’s Grievance Officer first; it must acknowledge within 24 hours and resolve within 15 days.
- If unsatisfied, appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days under Rule 3A.
For Counsel
- A writ attacking the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) is unlikely to succeed after this ruling; focus on the statutory grievance and appellate routes.
- Document the timeline of takedowns, complaints and responses; the Court’s analysis turned on the availability of these remedies.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the IT Intermediary Rules, 2021 upheld.
- Platforms may remove copyright-infringing content as part of due diligence.
- Remedies: Grievance Officer (Rule 3(2)) and Grievance Appellate Committee (Rule 3A).
- Writ petition dismissed; IT Act remedies remain open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Instagram remove my post on someone else’s copyright complaint?
According to this ruling, yes. The platform is an intermediary bound by due-diligence duties under the 2021 Rules and has the right to remove content that infringes copyright or other proprietary rights.
What can I do if my account is suspended?
Use the platform’s Grievance Officer under Rule 3(2), and if unsatisfied, appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days under Rule 3A. The Court also referred to remedies under Chapters IX and X of the IT Act.
Did the court decide whether the copyright complaints were genuine?
No. It decided only the constitutional challenge to the rule and left the petitioner to pursue his specific grievance through the IT Act remedies.
Conclusion
For the growing community of creators who depend on social media for a living, the ruling is a reminder that the law currently routes disputes over takedowns through the platform and a statutory appellate committee, not straight to a constitutional court. The High Court found that framework adequate and declined to strike down the rule.
Practical takeaway: Creators facing takedowns should promptly use the Grievance Officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee, keeping records of every notice and response, before considering litigation.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com