MP High Court Upholds IT Rule that lets social media platforms remove posts alleged to infringe copyright, finding that the Rules already give users a grievance route against takedowns.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to strike down Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which obliges social media platforms to ensure that users do not host content infringing copyright and other proprietary rights, and has dismissed the writ petition of an Instagram content creator whose posts were removed and whose account was suspended [Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia held that Instagram is an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, that it has a due diligence duty under the 2021 Rules, and that the safeguards built into the Rules were enough for both the complainant and the user. The order was authored by Justice Rusia.
How the case reached here
The petitioner runs an Instagram account with about 39,000 followers and, according to his petition, earns from advertising and collaborations through it. He told the Court that five of his posts were taken down in July 2025 after third-party complaints, that a further post was removed in August 2025 and that the account was then suspended, all without prior notice or a hearing. He added that emails and grievances sent to the platform up to January 2026 did not bring the account back. Meta Platforms Inc., which owns Instagram, was impleaded as a respondent.
His counsel, Deshhit Soubhri and Kaustubh Tiwari, argued that Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) offends Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, because copyright disputes turn on questions of fact that only a court can decide and a private platform should not be left to adjudicate them. The Union of India was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru. The Bench heard the matter and reserved its order on September 17, 2026, orally observing at the hearing that Meta owns Instagram and may take such action on its platform.
What the Court held
The Bench began by finding no substance in the petitioner’s arguments. It held that Instagram is an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act and that the 2021 Rules, framed under Section 87 of that Act, place due diligence obligations on social media intermediaries. Removal of content that infringes patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights falls within that duty, and the Court said the platform, though a private party, has the right to manage and control what appears on it.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv).
The grievance route
The Court pointed to the redress available to a user. Under Rule 3(2), an intermediary must appoint a Grievance Officer who acknowledges a complaint within 24 hours and disposes of it within 15 days, and Rule 3A provides an appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee. The Bench also noted the remedies under the IT Act itself, including an appeal to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, for complaints about a platform’s conduct.
Enough safeguard has been given to the complainant as well as user.
Finding the Rule neither beyond the parent Act nor in conflict with the Constitution, the Bench dismissed the petition.
The legal position
Intermediaries such as social media platforms enjoy conditional protection from liability for third-party content under Section 79 of the IT Act, provided they observe the due diligence prescribed by the 2021 Rules. Rule 3(1)(b) lists categories of content that a platform must tell its users not to host, and the clause at issue covers material infringing proprietary rights. The ruling confirms that such a platform may act on a complaint without a prior judicial finding of infringement, leaving the affected user to the statutory grievance and appeal mechanism rather than to a writ court in the first instance.
Why the order matters
For creators whose income depends on a social media account, the ruling makes clear that a copyright takedown notice is tested through the platform’s own grievance officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee, not by a constitutional challenge to the Rule. It also settles, at least within the jurisdiction of this Court, that the Rule does not violate Articles 14, 19 or 21 merely because a private platform acts first and the user is heard afterwards.
Case Title: Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur)
Date: Heard and reserved on September 17, 2026; order made available in October 2026
Appearances: Deshhit Soubhri and Kaustubh Tiwari, Advocates, for the petitioner; Suyash Mohan Guru, Deputy Solicitor General, for the Union of India