'Don't Use Instagram If You're Not Satisfied': MP High Court Orally Tells Creator While Reserving Verdict On Plea Against Account Suspension

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (September 17) reserved its verdict on a petition filed by a social media content creator challenging the removal of his Instagram posts and subsequent suspension of his account over alleged copyright infringement. 

The court was hearing the content creator's plea operating an Instagram account '@memenasha', who claimed that a private social media intermediary cannot be permitted to determine copyright violations without judicial adjudication. 

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition challenges Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, contending that the provision confers arbitrary powers upon intermediaries to remove users' content on the basis of alleged copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property violations. 

The counsel argued that the dispute concerned copyright infringement involving questions of fact that require judicial adjudication by a trial court or other competent court. Per the counsel, such factual disputes cannot be determined by a private entity such as a social media platform. 

To this the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia orally said, 

"Meta is the owner of Instagram. They can do it. If you are not satisfied with their services, don't use it". 

Noting that the petitioner has been earning his livelihood through his social media presence, the division bench further orally said, "You are earning from freedom of speech, isn't it. So it becomes commercial value for you; it no more remains a right". 

The bench further orally stated that, the intermediary is the owner of the platform and is entitled to delete the petitioner's post as the petitioner had not paid "lease" to keep his content on the intermediary's platform permanently.

The petitioner claimed to have around 39K followers on his account. According to the petition, the petitioner has been creating digital content since 2019 and earns his livelihood through his social-media presence, including advertising and collaborative campaigns. He contended that the account has consequently become a substantial source of his income.

The petition stated that on July 4, 2025, Instagram sent him two emails informing him that the posts uploaded on May 2 and June 16, 2025, were removed after third-party complaints alleging copyright infringement. Instagram allegedly advised him to approach the complainants directly to resolve the dispute.

Two days later, on July 6, three further posts uploaded on April 3, 17, and 24 were removed on the same grounds. According to the petition, a total of five posts were removed without giving him prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner subsequently filed a grievance with Instagram on July 25, 2025, stating that he suspected Instagram's copyright-testing mechanism was being misused to launch a 'cyber-attack' against his account.

The petition claimed that after contacting the complainant, he discovered through their chats that the complainant had lodged copyright complaints on question. He submitted these chats to Instagram along with his grievance and requested that his complaint be assigned to an individual for resolution.

The petition stated that the dispute escalated on August 25, 2025, when Instagram informed the petitioner that another post uploaded on August 16 had been removed following a third-party copyright complaint.

Per the petition, his Instagram account was thereafter suspended. He immediately appealed against the suspension at around 8:50 AM on August 25, and separately reiterated his allegation that Instagram's copyright mechanism was being misused.

The petition claimed that Instagram subsequently informed him that his account had been deactivated. He sent another email on August 31, seeking restoration of the account, and subsequently sent reminders on September 21, December 23, 2025, and January 22, 2026. But his account was not restored. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court. 

Case Title: Anmol Jain v Union of India

Writ Petition 4503/2026

For Petitioner: Advocates Kaustubh Tiwari and Deshhit Soubhri