The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a YouTuber seeking restoration of her YouTube channel after it was suspended over alleged copyright violations, holding that disputes arising from contractual terms cannot ordinarily be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari observed that the petition stemmed from a contractual relationship between the content creator and the platform and, therefore, did not warrant the exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The court was of the view that this issue can be resolved under any other law not under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition was filed by Swati alias Smriti Negi, who sought restoration of her YouTube account after it was allegedly removed following three copyright strikes. Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the account had been deleted without issuing any prior notice or providing her an opportunity to be heard.
The High Court, however, declined to grant the relief sought, observing that the relationship between the petitioner and YouTube was governed by an agreement containing specific terms and conditions.
The Court observed that since the petitioner agreed to YouTube’s terms, the platform has the right to enforce its contract and delete the account if those terms are violated.
While the petitioner maintained that she had not breached any of the platform’s terms or committed any copyright infringement, the Court held that such disputed questions arising out of a contractual arrangement cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
Disposing of the petition, Justice Tiwari granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available under law for redressal of her grievance, reiterating that the constitutional remedy under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum for resolving disputes rooted in contractual obligations.
The post Uttarakhand High Court refuses to restore YouTube Channel suspended over copyright violation appeared first on India Legal.