The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by a social media content creator challenging the removal of his Instagram posts over alleged copyright infringement and the subsequent suspension of his account. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 429]

The division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia also upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which allows social media platforms to remove content that infringes copyright and other proprietary rights. 

"The respondent no.4 (Meta Platforms Inc) may be a private party, but comes under the definition of "intermediary" under section 2(w) of Information Technology Act; therefore, this intermediary has been given a responsibility to maintain due diligence in order to run a social media platform; therefore, under such due diligence, the authority has been given power to remove harmful content/post from its platform, if there is infringement of any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary right, posted in the Instagram run by respondent no.4, then the respondent no.4 certainly has a right to remove such post/content". 

The petitioner was operating an Instagram account '@memenasha', claiming that a private social media intermediary cannot be permitted to determine copyright violations without judicial adjudication.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the said provision was unconstitutional and that the suspension or deactivation of his account violated his fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression. The counsel also alleged a violation of principles of natural justice as Instagram had removed his content and suspended his account without providing an opportunity of hearing. 

Rejecting the petitioner's challenge, the court held that Instagram fell under the definition of an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act, 2000. Further, it was noted that the 2021 Rules were framed under Section 87 of the 2000 Act and prescribed due diligence obligations for social media intermediaries. 

The bench noted that the Rules provided for a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism: a) first by publisher/platform via a Grievance Officer, b) Self-Regulating Body headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court/High Court, and c) by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, including an Inter-Departmental Committee. 

Additionally, it was noted that under Rule 3(1)(b), intermediaries were required to inform their rules and regulations, privacy policy, and user agreement to the user in English or any language and shall make reasonable efforts not to display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share any information that belongs to another person.

Thus, the bench highlighted that Section 3(1)(c) gave the right to Intermediaries to terminate access or usage rights of the users to the computer resource immediately or remove non-compliant information or both, as the case may be. 

The bench further noted that under Rule 3(2), a grievance redressal mechanism was established, under which a Grievance Officer had to acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days. Thus, the bench held, 

"So enough safeguard has been given to the complainant as well as user to submit his grievance before the Grievance Officer and thereafter to the Appellate Committee; therefore, the provision cannot be said to be ultra vires. Once, by way of statutory enactment and Rules made thereunder, the respondent no.4 has been permitted to establish an online platform as an intermediary, then the authority has also been rightly given the right to manage and control the platform. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021".

In the previous hearing, the court, while reserving its order, had orally remarked, "Meta is the owner of Instagram. They can do it. If you are not satisfied with their services, don't use it".

For Petitioner: Advocates Deshhit Soubhri and Kaustubh Tiwari

For Union: Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru