On 29 September 2026, the Delhi High Court turned its attention to a feature that millions of Indian Instagram users reach for every day: “Remix.” In a suit filed by Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, the well-known founder of Drishti IAS, against Meta Platforms, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani did not mince words about how the feature can be misused, reportedly remarking that it amounted to “a tool for copyright violation” and a “mischievous feature.” For IP practitioners and content creators alike, the case is worth watching closely, because it sits squarely at the intersection of copyright infringement, platform design, and intermediary liability under Indian law.
The Dispute: Divyakirti v. Meta Platforms
Dr. Divyakirti’s lectures and video content, widely circulated on social media, were allegedly being repurposed without authorisation through Instagram’s Remix feature, which lets a user post their own video alongside, or layered onto, another person’s public reel or video. The petitioner’s grievance was not simply that his content was being shared, but that Remix was enabling forms of reuse that went well beyond commentary or fair engagement — including fake profiles impersonating him, deepfake-style videos suggesting he endorsed products or views he never endorsed, wholesale reposting of his lectures with nothing more than a caption added, and edited clips that spliced his words out of context with misleading captions.
During the hearing, the Court reportedly pressed Meta on how such misuse could occur through a feature the platform itself had built and promoted, with the judge observing that Remix allows a user to effectively “pick up a video, paste it, and make it your own video.” That framing is significant: it shifts part of the scrutiny from the individual infringer to the platform’s own design choices.
A Four-Category Approach to the Content in Question
Rather than treating all of the disputed content as a single undifferentiated mass, the Court appears to have sorted it into four categories, each carrying a different legal temperature:
- Fake profiles and channels impersonating the plaintiff — treated as clearly impermissible, warranting removal.
- Deepfake or manipulated videos suggesting false endorsements — also treated as warranting takedown, given the deception involved.
- Full reposts of lectures with only a caption added, offering no transformation or commentary — treated as closer to straightforward reproduction than to any recognised exception.
- Edited clips with misleading captions that attribute statements the speaker never made — the Court reportedly held this category back for further hearing, acknowledging that some edited or commentary-style content could fall within protected criticism or review, while content designed to mislead would not.
Beyond the takedown directions for the first three categories, the Court is also reported to have directed disclosure of subscriber and IP-log information relating to certain uploaders — a step that, if it holds, would help rights holders identify repeat or large-scale infringers rather than chasing anonymous handles.
Why the Fourth Category Is the Hard One
The category the Court deferred is, in practice, the one that keeps copyright lawyers up at night. Indian copyright law recognises a fair dealing exception for criticism, review, and reporting of current events, among other purposes. A creator who edits a clip to critique, satirise, or comment on it is generally on firmer ground than one who reposts it wholesale. The difficulty is that “commentary” and “misleading distortion” can look identical on a feed — both involve cutting, captioning, and recontextualising someone else’s footage. Where a caption misattributes a statement to the original speaker, the dispute stops being a pure copyright question and shades into defamation and personality rights territory as well, which is likely why the Court chose to examine this bucket separately rather than deciding it on the fly.
The Platform Liability Angle
What makes this case more than a routine takedown dispute is the Court’s apparent willingness to question the design of the Remix feature itself, rather than looking only at the end-users who misused it. Social media intermediaries in India generally enjoy conditional safe harbour from liability for third-party content, provided they observe the due diligence obligations set out in the intermediary rules framework and act on actual knowledge or a court or government order to remove unlawful content. That protection, however, is not unconditional, and courts have periodically asked platforms to do more than simply respond to individual complaints — particularly where a feature is said to make infringement structurally easier, or where repeat offenders resurface under new handles faster than takedown requests can be processed.
If the Delhi High Court does eventually hold Meta to a higher standard of responsibility for how Remix itself is designed or moderated, that would be a notable development for platform accountability in India, building on the line of cases in which Indian courts have granted “dynamic” or ongoing injunctions allowing rights holders to add newly discovered infringing URLs to an existing order without filing a fresh suit each time.
Practical Takeaways for Creators, Educators, and Brands
While the final word on the deferred category is still awaited, a few practical points already emerge for anyone building a following on video platforms in India:
- Document your original uploads (timestamps, platform metadata, registration where feasible) early, since establishing first ownership is often the first hurdle in any dispute.
- Distinguish, in your own takedown strategy, between impersonation and deepfakes (where the case for removal is strong) and genuine commentary or critique by others (where a notice may be contested, and rightly so).
- Keep a log of repeat infringers and new handles used to re-upload the same content, as courts appear increasingly receptive to disclosure and dynamic-injunction style relief against persistent reposting.
- Where a caption or edit misattributes words to you, consider whether the stronger remedy lies in defamation or personality rights law rather than copyright alone, since the two often travel together in these disputes.
Platforms, for their part, would do well to anticipate that Indian courts are increasingly comfortable scrutinising feature design, not just individual uploads, when a tool is shown to be regularly misused at scale.
By Sevenelementz Legal Associates LLP, Advocates & IP Attorneys, Chennai.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their interpretation may change, and individual circumstances vary. For advice specific to your situation, please consult Sevenelementz Legal Associates LLP or another qualified advocate.