YouTuber Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction To Restore Channel Deleted Over Alleged Copyright Strikes: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked by a YouTuber to seek reinstatement of a YouTube channel deleted on account of alleged copyright strikes.
In doing so the court said that public law remedy is not a relief in a contractual dispute between a YouTuber and the social media platform.
The petitioner, a YouTuber, had sought a direction to the respondents to restore her YouTube channel to its original standing alongwith the contents deleted/removed by the respondent no. 3 (YouTube), including removal of all copyright strikes recorded against it.
The petitioner's counsel argued that her account was deleted from YouTube on account of alleged three copyright strikes, without any notice or opportunity of hearing
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari said:
"This Court is afraid that the relief sought cannot be granted in a writ petition. It is not in dispute that petitioner entered into an agreement with YouTube with certain terms and conditions. If YouTube finds that any one or more terms and conditions, settled between the parties, has been violated, then the account of the petitioner can be deleted...
Law is well settled that public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for settling contractual dispute or claims arising out of the contract. From the contentions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner's claim is based on an agreement, which she entered into with YouTube. For resolving the dispute raised in the writ petition, other remedies are available to the petitioner".
The court thus said that a Public law remedy under Article 226 is "certainly not a remedy" available for resolving a contractual dispute.
The counsel for petitioner said that the petitioner did not violate any terms or conditions of agreement entered into between her and YouTube. Meanwhile Counsel for the respondents submitted that a writ petition against YouTube is not maintainable, as it is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
The court disposed of the plea granting liberty to petitioner to avail such remedy, as is available to her under law.
Case title: Swati Alias Smriti Negi v/s Union of India & Others
WPMS/2267/2026
Appearance:
Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Adhikari, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the Union of India.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State.