Neetu Singh & Anr. V. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors. (2022) : An analysis of Intermediary Liability in Copyright Infringement


In the pervasive era of digitalization, intermediary liability has become an intensely contested topic. The Information Technology Act, 2002, under Section 2(w), defines intermediary as – “Intermediary with respect to any particular electronic message means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message”. This definition has been further refined in the Information Technology Rules of 2021, which defines a social media intermediary as – “an intermediary which primarily or solely enables online interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services.”

Legal Issue[Image source:Frepic]

Therefore, the legal understanding of an intermediary is confined to the facilitation of interaction between individuals. Due to the remoteness of internet or social media intermediaries, there can be instances where the location of intermediaries can have inimical consequences on the ability to seek redressal for any perceived violations of law. The recent case of Neetu Singh & Anr. V. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors (2022) is one judgement that seeks to clarify some of the ambiguities surrounding intermediary liability in the field of copyright infringement.


Neetu Singh (Plaintiff 1), is an author whose books have acquired popularity for their content on competitive examinations such as Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Bank Probationary Officer (PO), and NDA. Moreover, due to the dynamic needs of the classroom during the pandemic period, her coaching center M/S K.D. Campus (Plaintiff 2) adapted to the situation by conducting online classes which were available on her Telegram channel. According to her, the defendant Telegram, a messaging app, is responsible for hosting channels that are complicit in the unauthorized dissemination of her copyrighted work through course material, online lectures and other works, which amounts to copyright infringement. Telegram had been contacted to discontinue the existence of these infringing channels. Despite efforts, she was powerless against recurring instances of new channels that contained the same infringing content. Due to the frustrating state of affairs, she filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking discovery of the details of the persons who were operating the channels through the medium of Telegram.

Arguments by the Parties:

The counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs argued that, as per the pertinent clauses of the Privacy Policy of Telegram , in case of violation of any law by its channels, Telegram was liable to suspend those channels and disclose requisite information regarding the people running those channels. Moreover, to stop the onslaught of new channels that were cropping up by making minor alterations, such as the addition of a prefix or suffix, the counsel emphasized the necessity for the disclosure of the identity of the persons who were illegally disseminating the information to empower the Plaintiffs to enforce their legal rights against the infringers.
According to the counsel for the Defendant, the extant arrangement of contacting Telegram to suspend the impugned accounts was adequate to protect the interests of the Plaintiffs. He also relied on the judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors. to aver that unless there exists a specific law regarding information disclosure, the Defendant cannot be directed to perform such an act. Further, it was also vehemently asserted that since the servers of Telegram containing encrypted data were based in Singapore, decryption of the same data should be as per the provisions of Singaporean law i.e., Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) of 2012.

Court’s Findings:

The Court recognized the difficulty of locating the owners of the Telegram channels who were not only disseminating infringing content but also monetizing it under masked identities. Further, the Court noted that the infringement was concentrated in Delhi since the copyrighted works were being circulated there and the materials also comprised content that was relevant to the Indian scenario since it contained preparatory content for Indian competitive examinations. Therefore, the Court’s jurisdiction could not be ousted on the basis that the channels were hosted on the Telegram app whose servers were situated abroad.

As far as the Plaintiffs’ rights and liabilities under the prevalent legal system are concerned, they can be ascertained in the context of ‘literary works’ under Section 2(o) of the Indian Copyright Act 1957. The videos that were compiled by the Plaintiffs also satisfied the criteria of ‘cinematograph film’ under Section 2(f) of the Act. Due to their status as valid works under the Act, Section 14 recognizes exclusive rights that are conferred upon the copyright owner such as electronic reproduction of work, and issuance of copies of the protected work. Consequently, its illicit dissemination would be a contravention of the aforementioned provisions and thereby, constitute an infringing copy under Section 2(m) and the Plaintiffs were eligible for civil and criminal remedies provided under the Act. Further, Court opined – “infringement of copyright is indisputably a serious matter as it involves valuable rights of owners of copyright. The significance of the protection and enforcement of such rights cannot be diminished, merely due to the growth of technology, which has made infringers easy to hide and conceal their illegal activities”.

The most prominent aspect of this case relates to the origin of the infringing copies of the copyrighted works. Under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000, Telegram is obligated to remove or disable access to unlawful material without vitiating the evidence. Additionally, Rule 3 of the IT guidelines directs the intermediaries not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that is tantamount to copyright infringement, thereby obviating any possible recourse to relief under the information technology laws.

Even the defendant’s invocation of the Puttuswamy judgement was nullified due to the Supreme Court’s acknowledgement of the fact that encroachment of the right to privacy cannot be relied on as a ground for non-disclosure if there is an express law that requires disclosure of information. In this case, the Copyright Act empowers the infringing copies to be taken into custody, thereby permitting the circumvention of the right to privacy. The Court even pointed to the relevance of Section 81 of the IT Act 2000 which supplements the rights bequeathed under the Indian Copyright Act.

Thus, to ensure that the protection of copyrighted works evolves with the needs of the present times, the Court held that the mere fact of Telegram locating its servers in Singapore was insufficient to dissuade the disclosure of information for infringement that was concentrated within India. Any other judgement would have rendered the Plaintiffs defenceless and reduced their rights granted under the Indian Copyright Act to a pretence. Consequently, Telegram was directed to disclose the relevant details of the channels and devices that were instrumental in the illegal dissemination of the copyrighted material.

Author: Anuparna Chatterjee, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply


  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010