Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Writ Petition to Restore YouTube Channel, Holds Article 226 Cannot Resolve Contractual Disputes
A woman sought a writ of mandamus to restore her deleted YouTube channel and remove copyright strikes, but the Uttarakhand High Court held that Article 226 is not available for contractual claims against YouTube.
The Uttarakhand High Court on 4 August 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by Swati alias Smriti Negi, who sought directions compelling YouTube to reinstate her deleted channel and remove three copyright strikes recorded against it. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, sitting singly, declined to grant any relief, holding that a dispute rooted in a private agreement between the petitioner and YouTube cannot be resolved through public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court left the petitioner free to pursue whatever remedy is available to her under law.
What the Petitioner Asked the Court to Do
The writ petition, registered as WPMS/2267/2026, sought three writs in the nature of mandamus. First, the petitioner asked the court to direct respondents to reinstate and restore her YouTube channel to its original standing, along with all content that had been deleted or removed, and to strike off the copyright strikes recorded against it. Second, she sought a direction to the Union of India and another respondent to settle her grievance with YouTube. Third, she asked for a direction compelling respondents to act upon her representation.
In substance, as the court recorded, the petitioner wanted a direction to YouTube to reinstate and restore her account and channel to its original standing.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, argued that her account had been deleted on account of three alleged copyright strikes, and that this was done without any notice or opportunity of hearing. He further submitted that the petitioner had not violated any terms or conditions of the agreement she had entered into with YouTube.
The Core Legal Bar: YouTube Is Not “State” Under Article 12
Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Saurabh Adhikari appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Suyash Pant appearing for the State, raised a threshold objection: a writ petition against YouTube is not maintainable because YouTube does not qualify as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 jurisdiction — which is broader than Article 32 in that it extends to bodies other than the State — still cannot be exercised in respect of purely contractual disputes between private parties.
The court did not dispute the petitioner's factual account of the copyright strikes or the absence of prior notice. It instead went directly to the legal character of the claim.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Tiwari identified that the petitioner's relationship with YouTube was governed by a contract. It was not disputed that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with YouTube that carried specific terms and conditions. The court noted that if YouTube found that one or more of those terms had been violated, the agreement permitted deletion of the account.
The petitioner's position that she had not violated any term did not alter the character of the dispute. Whether she violated the terms or not is itself a question that arises from and is governed by the contract between the parties. The court held that law is well settled that the public law remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked for settling a contractual dispute or claims arising out of a contract.
From the contentions made before it, the court found it apparent that the petitioner's claim was based entirely on the agreement she had entered into with YouTube. Other remedies are available to the petitioner for resolving such a dispute. Article 226, the court held, is certainly not one of them.
Outcome
The writ petition was disposed of. No direction was issued to YouTube or to the Union of India. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as is available to her under law. No costs were mentioned in the order.