Bombay High Court sets three-hour takedown deadline for pirated Ramayana film content
Justice Ashish S. Chavan fixed the outer limit on 6 November 2026, supplementing the dynamic injunction of 2 November against John Doe defendants. Copyright Act sections 14, 51 and 55, dynamic injunctions and section 79 safe harbour explained.
The Bombay High Court has told internet service providers and digital platforms to disable access to unauthorised copies of the film Ramayana within three hours of a takedown notice from the copyright holder or its authorised representative. Justice Ashish S. Chavan issued the directions on 6 November 2026, a day after the film's theatrical release on 5 November.
The application was moved by Godpower Media Private Limited, which holds the copyright in the film. It told the Court that pirated material had begun appearing on digital platforms after the release.
What the Court directed on 6 November
The Court directed the service providers and platform defendants to act on every takedown or blocking request from Godpower Media or its representative without delay, and in all circumstances within three hours of receiving it. The direction sets an outer limit on top of the earlier requirement of immediate action.
The intermediaries must also confirm in writing that they have the systems and personnel to implement the order in real time. Each has to disclose the name, email address and telephone number of a designated nodal officer.
The purpose, the Court noted, is to give the copyright owner an identifiable contact rather than leave it to navigate prolonged complaint procedures. The directions remain subject to further orders by the regular bench, and the matter is listed on 16 December 2026.
Why the producer returned to court
Godpower Media said it had sent notices and reminders to service providers and platforms on 4 November 2026, but several had not confirmed that they would act promptly on removal requests.
Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat argued that delay in processing takedowns could defeat the purpose of copyright protection in the first days after a release. Pirated copies and clips, he submitted, can spread across many platforms within a short time, which makes later removal harder.
The injunction of 2 November
The new directions supplement an order of 2 November 2026 in Godpower Media Private Limited v. John Does and Others. On that day the High Court granted a dynamic ad-interim injunction against unidentified John Doe entities and digital platforms.
The injunction restrains unknown persons from recording, uploading, streaming, downloading or otherwise distributing the film or any part of it without authorisation. It covers websites, social media platforms and other digital channels, including mirror and proxy websites.
Copyright in a film and its remedies
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 gives the owner of copyright in a cinematograph film the exclusive right to make a copy of it, to sell or hire copies, and to communicate the film to the public. Under section 51, copyright is infringed when anyone does any of these acts without a licence from the owner.
Section 55 supplies the civil remedy. The owner is entitled to an injunction, damages and accounts, and the proviso limits an innocent infringer to an injunction and a share of profits. A study note in the Copyright Act readings adds that infringement is a continuing wrong, so a fresh cause of action arises every day it goes on.
For interim relief, the Bombay High Court has held that where the balance of convenience is equal, the defendant who has prima facie infringed must bear the inconvenience of an injunction rather than the owner going without one (N.T. Raghunathan, AIR 1971 Bom 48).
John Doe orders and dynamic injunctions
An order against unnamed defendants is called a John Doe order, and Indian courts also call it an Ashok Kumar order. The Delhi High Court used the device in Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal ([2003] FSR 22), restraining unidentified cable operators from showing the 2002 FIFA World Cup without a licence.
A dynamic injunction goes further and reaches sites that appear after the order. In UTV Software Communication Ltd v. 1337x.to, decided on 10 April 2019, Justice Manmohan of the Delhi High Court let the right holder extend a blocking order to mirror, redirect and alphanumeric sites by applying to the Joint Registrar.
The Court used its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 1 Rule 10 to add such sites. It also asked whether a site is a rogue one, meaning it primarily or predominantly shares infringing content, rather than counting individual infringements as the Bombay High Court did in Eros International v. BSNL.
In August 2023 the Delhi High Court went a step further in Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, a dynamic+ injunction that also covers works not yet released. The Bombay order of 2 November 2026 was passed three days before Ramayana reached theatres.
Intermediaries, safe harbour and the deadline
Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 shields an intermediary from liability for third-party information it hosts or links to. Under section 79(3)(b), that protection ends if the intermediary, on receiving actual knowledge or being notified, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the material.
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (AIR 2015 SC 1523), the Supreme Court read section 79(3)(b) down so that actual knowledge means a court order or a notification by the appropriate government. Section 81 of the Act separately preserves a person's rights under the Copyright Act.
Applying that scheme, the Delhi High Court in MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd ((2017) 236 DLT 478) held that a platform's duty to act arises when the right holder supplies specific links.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 require intermediaries to observe due diligence and, under Rule 3(1)(d), to act on court orders.
The nodal officer requirement echoes Rule 4(1) of the same Rules, which obliges significant social media intermediaries to appoint a nodal contact person for round-the-clock coordination.
The anti-piracy protection for Ramayana now rests on the order of 2 November 2026 and the supplementary directions of 6 November 2026. Both remain subject to the regular bench, which will take up the matter on 16 December 2026.