Telegram claimed that user information cannot be disclosed unless the person is declared to be a terror suspect under its privacy policies.
Telegram’s claim that it cannot disclose user information because that would violate its privacy policies and the laws in the jurisdiction where its physical servers reside, was rejected by the Delhi High Court. The court ordered the messaging app to reveal, in sealed covers, details about the channels and devices used in disseminating content that allegedly violated copyright. It also requested that the mobile numbers, email addresses, and email IDs of those involved be disclosed.
Justice Pratibha Singh ruled that disclosures of details of channel operators disseminating material infringing copyright or of devices and other gadgets used to do so on the basis a court order could not be protected under the protection of privacy or freedom of speech or expression.
“The source and origin of infringing material must be tracked and any devices or individuals involved in the infringement should face penalties in accordance to law, including being held responsible for damages. This would not be possible if it is not possible to trace the source of infringing copies (i.e. the details of infringing channels),” the court ruled on Tuesday. It was made public on Wednesday.
In a case brought by K D Campus Private Limited and Neetu Singh, the court ruled that study material they had prepared for competitive exams was being distributed without authorization through Telegram channels. The court received the Telegram information and said it would be open to receiving further instructions.
Telegram claimed that user information cannot be disclosed unless the person is declared to be a terrorist suspect under its privacy policies. Telegram’s servers are located in Singapore, which have encrypted data. It was further argued that decryption of such data is not permissible unless it was allowed by the laws of Singapore.
Justice Singh stated that Telegram’s decision to locate its server at Singapore does not mean that Indian copyright owners will be without recourse for infringing copyright. According to the court, Telegram would be perfectly justified by Indian courts to order it to follow Indian law and to comply with Indian courts’ orders for disclosure of information about copyright infringers.
Justice Singh stated that Telegram policies do not allow infringers to seek shelter because Telegram’s physical server is located in Singapore. He also said that the Personal Data Protection Act of Singapore makes exceptions to privacy and recognizes violations of laws.
According to the Singapore law, the disclosure of personal data in connection with any proceeding relating to copyright infringement would be an exception to data privacy. Telegram’s argument that it is an intermediary and therefore not required to disclose details of the source of the information was rejected by the court. The court stated that disabling or closing the channel is sufficient.
The court stated that the channels were clearly hydra-headed and would soon surface. It added that infringements must be stopped and that courts cannot keep an eye on the matter.
In addition, the court stated that traditional notions of territoriality cannot be used in an age of cloud computing and shrinking national borders in data storage.
The court noted that both teachers and the entire education system have taken significant initiatives to ensure students had access to online learning materials during the Covid-19 pandemic. It said that copyright protection must evolve in line with the changing times. Otherwise, it could have a chilling impact on educators’ progressive efforts.
The plaintiffs had presented before the court that even though Telegram has taken down channels that disseminate material that infringes on copyright, many more are still coming up every day. On July 28, 2020, the court had made an interim order in this case. The order failed to stop unauthorised dissemination. Therefore, plaintiffs filed a request for disclosure regarding the people who operate such channels.
