The Delhi High Court has requested responses from the Central and Delhi governments, along with Meta Platforms, concerning a public interest litigation (PIL) that accuses cybercriminals of exploiting the copyright enforcement system on Instagram. The court’s Division Bench, consisting of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has also instructed the petitioner to electronically submit his grievance to Meta within a week. Meta is expected to review and address the complaint appropriately.
During the proceedings, the court noted that the petition highlights issues that transcend individual copyright conflicts. “This is a larger issue,” the court acknowledged, recognizing the petition’s focus on cybercrime and digital extortion.
The PIL was introduced by Nitin Joshi, a digital content creator, who claims that cyber-extortion networks are manipulating Instagram’s copyright enforcement procedures. According to Joshi, these criminals edit their previous posts to mirror the new content of original creators and then report them for copyright infringement. The resultant copyright strikes often lead to account suspensions, with the alleged criminals demanding significant sums to retract their complaints.
The petition calls for several measures including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged racket, reinstatement of accounts suspended without a human review, mandatory human review before any permanent action on copyright issues, disclosure of complainants’ identities, and a fast-track grievance mechanism for extortion or fraud cases. It also contests certain aspects of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which allow for account suspension without prior notification.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Meta, questioned the PIL’s validity, arguing that the Information Technology Rules already provide a statutory grievance redressal framework. “He is saying your (Meta’s) platform is defective and somebody is using it to create copyright problems. These are fact-driven questions. It can’t be a PIL. I am saying file an application to the grievance officer,” Datar contended. The court inquired if the grievance officer could address these issues, to which Datar affirmed.
More Read
Datar asserted that the petitioner’s complaint pertains to third-party misuse of the platform, not flaws in Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanism. “Any mechanism will have rogue players. It can’t be helped. This platform is worldwide, it is not only for India,” Datar explained, emphasizing that Meta has existing procedures to tackle such complaints.
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Tejbir Singh clarified that the petition targets the misuse of the copyright system as a tool for cyber extortion, not the mechanism itself. Joshi explained that false copyright strikes followed his original content uploads, leading to extortionate email demands for withdrawal.
Joshi further claimed these demands stemmed from anonymous email addresses without meaningful verification. “I made a video to raise awareness on this issue, then it gets taken down. It is not just extortion. There is a criminal angle on this, probably Bangladesh,” Joshi informed the court.
More Read
Advocate Varun Pathak, for Meta, stated that while automated tools process copyright complaints under IT Rules, no system is flawless. “Only 5-7 cases have come to the court. The bad actors somehow have access and are negotiating with them. Our difficulty is that they don’t invoke the grievance mechanism,” Pathak argued.
The court issued notices to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Delhi government. However, it clarified that while the petitioner mentioned about 40 similar cases, those individuals must seek their own remedies.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 21.
