The Delhi High: Server being in Singapore is no defence to Copyright Infringers
In the recent case of Neetu Singh & Anr. v. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors, the Delhi High Court stated that online messaging platforms such as Telegram are no exception to following Indian laws and are required to disclose all necessary information such as addresses, mobile numbers, and devices used in operating channels in instances of copyright infringement if directed by Indian Courts.
Background
The factual matrix that led to the present case is that plaintiff no.1 M/S Neetu Singh is the founder of K.D Campus, which runs coaching centers for competitive examinations including Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Bank Probationary Officer (PO), CDS, NDA, etc., and alleges that a number of their course materials, online lectures, and other works are unauthorizedly being uploaded on a daily basis and are made accessible at discounted rates on Telegram. The present suit is filed against the defendants Telegram FZ LLC and John Doe, i.e., unknown persons, for alleged dissemination of the former’s copyrighted works through various Telegram Channels.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, it was argued that under the privacy policy of Telegram itself, it is stated that in case of violations of the law, Telegram is liable to take down such infringing channels and also to disclose information relating to the persons who are running the same. It was further added that, post interim orders by the court, the impugned channels had been taken down but were later added by modifying certain prefixes or suffixes to the channel names. Hence, the need to disclose information regarding the identity of such infringing persons is pertinent so as to take an effective recourse against infringers.
On the other hand, the defendants contended that the interim order already passed taking down the impugned channels is sufficient enough to protect the interests of the plaintiffs. Also, as per the privacy policy of Telegram, unless a person is a terror suspect, the disclosure of the subscriber cannot be made. Further, relying on the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1, it was asserted that without a law requiring the disclosure of such information, revealing the identity of the subscribers would amount to a breach of the right to privacy as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defendants went on to argue that under the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics, 2021, which were enacted post the Puttaswamy judgment, it was made clear that unless the requirements mentioned under the first proviso to Rule 4(1)(2) of the guidelines are not met, the courts cannot direct the disclosure of the basic subscriber information. Vehement reliance was also placed on the fact that Telegram has its servers based in Singapore, so the Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 (PDPA) of Singapore is applicable, thereby barring Indian courts from entertaining the matter.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court, on analysis of both the sides, came to the conclusion that the disclosure of information pertaining to the subscribers, if and when directed by Indian courts, is vital in enforcing the rights warranted to the IP holders, who otherwise would be rendered remedy less if the conventional concepts of territoriality are strictly adhered to. Compliance with PDPA cannot be an excuse to justify the infringers’ actions and that dissemination of infringing content would amount to a violation of not just Indian laws but also Singapore laws. The IT guidelines do not in any manner obviate the duty of Telegram to take effective steps to protect the rights of IP holders. Furthermore, Article 21 cannot be used as a scapegoat by any person or entity, let alone an infringer, for their illegal actions. Accordingly, Telegram in the present case was directed to disclose the necessary information about the infringers as per the list of channels filed.