Justice Tejas Karia Recuses from Hearing PIL Alleging Misuse of Meta’s Copyright Rules for Cyber Extortion
In a significant development concerning digital rights and platform accountability, Delhi High Court Judge Justice Tejas Karia on Tuesday recused himself from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleges widespread misuse of Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanism on Instagram to extort content creators. The matter, which was listed before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Karia, will now be placed before another Bench on July 28.
The PIL has been filed by digital content creator Nitin Joshi, who claims that organised cyber-criminal syndicates are exploiting Instagram’s automated copyright strike system by filing fabricated copyright complaints against genuine creators. According to the petition, once legitimate accounts are suspended or disabled, the perpetrators allegedly demand lakhs of rupees from creators in exchange for withdrawing the complaints or facilitating restoration of their accounts.
During the brief hearing, Justice Tejas Karia recused himself without assigning reasons. Recording the recusal, Chief Justice Upadhyaya directed that the case be listed before a Bench of which Justice Karia is not a member. The Court has accordingly fixed July 28 for the next hearing.
The petition describes the alleged practice as a “newly emerging cyber crime” and contends that Meta’s existing copyright enforcement mechanism allows automated disabling of accounts without prior notice, adequate verification of copyright ownership or meaningful human review. The petitioner argues that these procedural gaps have enabled criminal networks to weaponise copyright complaints for digital blackmail and financial extortion.
Besides seeking a court-monitored investigation, the PIL urges the Delhi High Court to direct the Union Government to formulate a transparent regulatory framework governing copyright enforcement by social media intermediaries. It also seeks safeguards such as mandatory verification of complainants, human review before disabling accounts, a time-bound appellate mechanism and prompt restoration of wrongfully suspended accounts. The petition further calls for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged organised cyber-extortion network, trace both domestic and international perpetrators and follow the financial trail of the extortion proceeds.
According to the petitioner, numerous digital creators have reported losing access to their established Instagram accounts after false copyright complaints were filed against them. The plea asserts that the fear of permanently losing years of work and online audiences often compels creators to succumb to ransom demands, highlighting the growing intersection of intellectual property enforcement and cybercrime.
The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for the regulation of automated copyright enforcement systems used by global social media platforms. While Justice Karia’s recusal does not affect the merits of the petition, the proceedings before a new Bench could shape future judicial scrutiny of intermediary liability, digital due process and safeguards against abuse of online copyright enforcement mechanisms in India.
