Amazon on Thursday told the Karnataka High Court that it is entitled to the safe-harbour protection available to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in a case concerning the alleged sale of pirated copies of late journalist Ravi Belagere's novel Heli Hogu Kaarana on its platform.

Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, appearing for Amazon, submitted that the company merely provides a platform connecting sellers and buyers and cannot be held liable for alleged copyright infringement committed by third-party sellers. He also submitted that Amazon had exercised due diligence in relation to sellers operating on its platform.

“We provide a platform for a seller and a buyer,” Chouta submitted, explaining that Amazon does not determine the price of books sold by third-party sellers. According to him, the seller decides the price and Amazon's role is limited to providing the platform, subject to compliance with due-diligence requirements.

Referring to Section 79(2) and (3) of the IT Act, the senior counsel argued that Amazon falls within the definition of an intermediary and is protected from civil or criminal liability under the safe-harbour provision.

Chouta relied on decisions including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak, Kunal Bahl v. State of Karnataka and the Delhi High Court's decision concerning Flipkart, to contend that an intermediary cannot be held liable for third-party content or transactions merely because such material is available through its platform.

He further submitted that there was no requirement for an intermediary to take down listings unless there was an order contemplated under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. Nevertheless, he said, Amazon had proactively removed the listings of all 12 sellers as soon as the alleged infringement was brought to its notice.

The senior counsel also distinguished between different e-commerce business models. He submitted that in an inventory-based model, the company purchases the products, stores them and determines the pricing before placing them on the platform. Amazon, he argued, operates differently in the present context as it provides a marketplace for third-party sellers.

“Blinkit and so on follow inventory model. Flipkart Amazon, we are just providing a platform”, the counsel told the court.

Chouta also relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Amazon v. Amway (2020), where the Court considered the argument that Amazon was an “active” rather than a “passive” intermediary. He submitted that the Delhi High Court had rejected a distinction between the two categories for the purpose of intermediary protection.

The counsel further argued that Amazon could not be made an accused in the absence of specific allegations that it had failed to comply with its statutory due-diligence obligations.

He told the Court that Amazon had also furnished the Investigating Officer with details of the sellers allegedly involved in the sale of the disputed books.

The case arises from an FIR registered at Subramanyapura Police Station on a complaint by Bhavana Belagere, daughter of late journalist Ravi Belagere, who claims copyright over Heli Hogu Kaarana.

On May 19, the Court had stayed further proceedings in the FIR lodged under Section 51(1)(b) (Infringement of Copyright) and Section 63 (Offence of Infringement & Penalty) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Meesho and Flipkart are also named in the FIR but they are not before the High Court in the current proceedings.

Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: Crl P 7018/2026