Social Media Platforms Can Remove Infringing Content as Intermediaries: MP HC Rejects Challenge To IT Rules

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to strike down a provision of the IT Intermediary Rules that obliges social media platforms to keep infringing content off their services, holding that a platform like Instagram, as an intermediary, is entitled to remove posts that violate patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia dismissed a writ petition filed by Anmol Jain, a content creator, challenging the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The order was passed on September 17, 2026.

Jain runs an Instagram account under the name “memexnasha”, which, according to him, has around 39,000 followers built through hard work since 2019. He says the account is a substantial source of his livelihood.

The dispute began when Instagram emailed him that his posts had infringed a complainant’s copyright and had been taken down. On July 6, 2025, content he had posted in April 2025 was removed. Jain claimed no notice or hearing was given. He complained on July 25, 2025 that someone was misusing Instagram’s copyright policy through false complaints, but was asked to follow the platform’s grievance mechanism. On August 25, 2025, he was told that a post dated August 16, 2025 had also been removed on a third party’s complaint. He then appealed and, on August 31, 2025, sought reinstatement of his account.

Before the High Court, Jain argued that the rule was ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. His central contention was that the rule hands a private party the job of deciding whether intellectual property rights have been infringed, a task that belongs to a court of law. He also alleged a breach of natural justice.

The bench was not persuaded. “We do not find substance in the arguments of the petitioner in order to declare the Rule 3(1)(b)(iv)... to be unconstitutional,” it observed.

The court noted that Instagram falls within the definition of “intermediary” under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Rule 3 requires a social media intermediary to observe due diligence, and Rule 3(1)(b) obliges it to make reasonable efforts to ensure that nothing infringing another person’s proprietary rights is displayed or shared on the platform.

“The respondent no.4 may be a private party, but comes under the definition of ‘intermediary’,” the bench said, adding that such a platform “certainly has a right to remove” a post that infringes intellectual property rights.

The bench highlighted the safeguards in the framework. Under Rule 3(2), every intermediary must appoint a Grievance Officer, who must acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days. Under Rule 3A, any person aggrieved by the officer’s decision, or whose grievance is not resolved in time, can appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days.

“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,” the court held.

The bench added that once the law permits a private entity to run an online platform as an intermediary, it is also “rightly given the right to manage and control the platform.”

As for Jain’s grievance over the removal of his posts, the court said his remedy lay elsewhere. It pointed to Chapter IX of the IT Act, which deals with penalties, compensation and adjudication, and Chapter X, which provides for appeals to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Instagram’s action, the bench said, “can be examined if the remedy is availed under the aforesaid provisions.”

Finding no ground to interfere with the rule’s validity, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Advocates Deshhit Soubhri and Kaustubh Tiwari appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru represented the Union of India.

Case Title: Anmol Jain vs. Union of India and Others

Order Date: September 17, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia