Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds IT Intermediary Rule in Instagram Copyright Takedown Challenge

Court rejects constitutional challenge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, while dismissing a writ petition by an Instagram content creator whose posts were removed following copyright complaints. The judgment in Anmol Jain v. Union of India was delivered on September 17, 2026, and was reported as a legal development on October 27.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia rejected the argument that the rule was unconstitutional merely because a private social media platform could take action against content allegedly infringing intellectual property rights. The Court treated intermediary due diligence and the availability of grievance procedures as central to the validity of the regulatory framework.

How the dispute arose

The petitioner operated an Instagram account which, according to his pleadings, had approximately 39,000 followers and formed a substantial part of his work as a digital content creator. He stated that the platform removed posts following third-party copyright complaints in July and August 2025. He challenged the removal and subsequent suspension or deactivation of his account, alleging that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded before the platform acted.

His argument was that a private intermediary should not effectively decide copyright disputes, which ordinarily involve legal questions capable of judicial determination. He also invoked constitutional guarantees including equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practise a profession, and personal liberty. The petition questioned the legal foundation for enabling a platform to remove posts in response to proprietary-rights complaints.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had contacted the platform and was directed towards its grievance procedure. That background mattered because the Bench considered the statutory and regulatory remedies available to a person dissatisfied with an intermediary's action.

Reasoning under the Information Technology framework

The Bench referred to the definition of an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It noted that the 2021 Rules were framed under the Act and require intermediaries to observe due diligence in the operation of their services. Rule 3 addresses information that infringes another person's patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights.

The Court reasoned that a platform falling within the statutory definition of intermediary may manage non-compliant material as part of its due diligence obligations. It did not accept that the rule was invalid because the platform is a private company. The judgment also examined the mechanism for users to complain to a grievance officer and to pursue an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee.

In particular, the judgment recorded that the grievance officer must acknowledge a complaint within twenty-four hours and ordinarily resolve it within fifteen days. It also referred to the prescribed appellate route and the thirty-day period for bringing an appeal against a grievance officer's decision or an unresolved grievance. These procedures informed the Bench's conclusion that safeguards existed for users.

Scope and consequence

The ruling does not mean that every copyright allegation is correct, or that a platform's particular decision is beyond review. Rather, it rejects a constitutional attack on the rule and points aggrieved users towards the statutory and regulatory avenues for challenging platform action. Whether a specific removal complied with applicable rules may raise a separate factual and legal question.

The writ petition was dismissed. The judgment carries the neutral citation 2026:MPHC-JBP:73411. Advocates Deshhit Soubhri and Kaustubh Tiwari appeared for the petitioner; Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru appeared for the Union. The immediate legal result is that the challenged rule remains undisturbed and the petitioner obtained no order restoring his account.

Case: Anmol Jain v. Union of India, W.P. No. 4503 of 2026. Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia.