‘Copyright infringers cannot Delhi High Cort seeks Telegram channels’ details

Over the last couple of days, a prominent lawyer from Delhi has filed an urgent application to court seeking directions for his client’s two organisations, namely “The People’s Court Legal Foundation” and “People’s Advocate General”. The applications are directed to seek information about people who registered or worked in the said groups on Telegram and any other social media platform.

According to the lawyers, as per the data they have so far, it is unclear how many users of that group or channels, their contacts and the number of shares they have shared to their timeline. The lawyers also do not know which accounts led these messages or where the tweets and shares were going to be posted. They claim that this information cannot be made available without the consent of those who work in these groups or can share messages on these groups.

Telegram India CEO Pavel Durov say, “We have no objection to anyone using our app, but now you (Telegram) have to tell us your user base, so we will pass them through.” However, when asked if he would like everyone to stop uploading content or creating links in a video, he did not respond immediately.

The lawyers had previously informed the court that it “will take them four months to prepare, that’s all the time for them to submit their evidence to show that what they want to prove is true”. In its reply, the bench expressed concerns over the allegations and added that Delhi could apply for further notice, adding that the next date of hearing is January 11.

In another development, the bench is likely to decide the plea by February 5 following objections raised by both sides. It was recently taken up that it will decide after observing the submissions on December 10 and the replies to the same. Last week, a division bench had ordered the duo to file opposing papers within three weeks.

Meanwhile, legal experts believe that such a move may not stand due to Section 59 CrPC, which prohibits copyright infringement. Since there is provision for exceptions, they claim, this order is nullity and should be quashed.

Lawyer Sushil Chandra Singh says, “In most cases, persons or entities can register themselves on platforms as individuals when registered under name. If someone posts something else’s property on their account, then that person can register himself or herself with the relevant permissions and use such property in anyway.” He adds that a case can be established at least on the basis of registration. On the issue of post, Mr. Singh states that the petitioner can prove his claims on the ground of having registered his/her account with sufficient permission. As per Section 59, an author cannot create or publish anything without prior permission and permission shall not be required for publishing. This means even a single poster posted on Instagram, YouTube and Facebook cannot be a copyright infringer.

The petition filed by advocate Ashutosh Kumar Sharma seeks directions directing all the subscribers of a WhatsApp channel that has around 30 thousand members, including celebrities and political figures, to provide contact details of the subscribers on a dedicated page by Feb 5. This would include their mobile numbers. These would have to be removed before the final submission.

The lawyers argue that the channel’s owner has already provided these information in public notices through press releases. A notice published on the blog of the organisation’s founder, Virendra Sharma, mentions its website and contact number. Hence the lawyers have alleged breach of trust. The communication is sent out via emails. Apart from making copies of the press release, the lawyers claim, one can send them a link to access the press release.

Sharma also says that people can make appeals based on “the freedom of expression clause in Article 19(1) of the Constitution which safeguards fundamental right to express oneself freely”.

The petitioners have claimed that the owner’s aim is only to start a new business which will serve the interests of politicians and billionaires. Their arguments are supported with the statements of several well known personalities who are working with the organisation. They claim the owner had given an appointment to Amit Malviya, chairman and former director of Republic TV, which makes him an agent for the owners. The lawyers say that this was done with specific knowledge of Sharmaji Banerjee of Nandini & Associates LLP who is being treated as the accused in the FIR. Therefore, their arguments are plausible. Moreover, Mr. Sharma’s statement clearly indicates that his decision was pre-planned.