By Huda Jafri
When a social media platform removes your posts and suspends your account over copyright complaints, is it acting as a private court, or is it carrying out a statutory duty of due diligence? For digital creators whose livelihoods depend on their accounts, the distinction matters. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has now answered the question in favour of the platform, dismissing a writ petition that challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the IT Rules, 2021).
The Background
In Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others,[1] the petitioner operated the Instagram account “memexnasha” on the platform of Respondent No. 4. According to him, he had built a following of about 39,000 since 2019, and the account had become a substantial source of his livelihood as part of the digital content-creator economy.
The petitioner received two emails from Instagram stating that his posts had infringed the complainant’s copyright and had been removed, and directing him to contact the complainant to resolve the issue. On 6 July 2025, his posts dated 3, 17 and 24 April 2025 were removed. He said he received no notice or hearing before the removal.
On 25 July 2025, he complained that someone was misusing Instagram’s copyright policy by filing false complaints, and was told to use the platform’s grievance mechanism. On 25 August 2025, Instagram informed him that a post dated 16 August 2025 had been removed on a third-party copyright complaint. His account was then suspended. He appealed the suspension and, on 31 August 2025, sought reinstatement of his account.
The Petitioner’s Arguments
- Private adjudication of IP rights: Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) entrusts a private party such as Respondent No. 4 with determining patent, trademark, copyright and other proprietary rights and their infringement, which is the jurisdiction of a court of law.
- Fundamental rights: The rule is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the suspension of his account violated his right to free speech and expression.
- Natural justice: The suspension and deactivation of his account was unlawful and arbitrary, as he was given no opportunity of hearing beforehand.
The High Court’s Ruling
A Division Bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Hon’ble Justice Vivek Rusia, with the order authored by Hon’ble Justice Rusia, heard the petitioner’s counsel at length and found no substance in the challenge. Its reasoning rested on four points.
- Instagram is an intermediary. Respondent No. 4 falls within the definition of “intermediary” in Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The IT Rules, 2021 were notified by the Government of India under Section 87 of the IT Act.
- Due diligence includes removing infringing content. Rule 3(1)(b) requires intermediaries to inform users of their rules, privacy policy and user agreement, and to make reasonable efforts to ensure that users do not host or share content that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary right. Rule 3(1)(c) allows the intermediary to terminate a user’s access, remove non-compliant information, or both. The Court held that where infringing content is posted, the platform “certainly has a right to remove” it.
- Adequate safeguards exist. Under Rule 3(2), the intermediary’s Grievance Officer must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days. Removal requests under Rule 3(1)(b) must be resolved within 72 hours, except those under sub-clauses (i), (iv) and (xi). A user aggrieved by the Grievance Officer’s decision may appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A within 30 days. The Court held these safeguards sufficient for both complainants and users, so the rule could not be said to be ultra vires.
- Statutory remedies are available. Any grievance against the platform’s action can be examined under Chapter IX of the IT Act (penalties, compensation and adjudication), with an appeal to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under Chapter X.
The Court concluded that once the statute and rules permit a platform to operate as an intermediary, it has rightly been given the power to manage and control that platform. The writ petition was dismissed.
Conclusion
The ruling gives platforms clarity that removing infringing content is part of their statutory due diligence, not an unauthorised exercise of judicial power. For creators, the message is practical: when a post is taken down or an account suspended, the first remedy lies in the grievance and appeal mechanisms under the IT Rules, 2021 and the IT Act.
Aysha Sasmin, Intern at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[1]Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2026, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, order dated 17.09.2026, 2026:MPHC-JBP:73411.