Delhi High Court questioned Meta over an Instagram feature that can let users modify and repost others’ videos during Vikas Divyakirti’s personality-rights suit.
What Happened
The Delhi High Court on 29 September 2026 questioned Meta over an Instagram feature that, as described during the hearing, allows users to take another person’s video, modify it and upload the altered version on their own account.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani raised the issue while hearing a suit filed by educator and Drishti IAS founder Dr Vikas Divyakirti. The Court’s questions focused on whether such a built-in platform tool could facilitate copyright infringement by allowing users to manipulate content created by others.
The judge illustrated the concern with a cooking-video example. A user could take an existing video showing a recipe, add footage of themselves cooking, and then publish the modified version through their own handle. The Court also described the feature as a “tool for copyright violation” and questioned the wisdom of giving powerful tools to users whose identities may not be known to the platform. The judge compared the situation with gun ownership and said it was “worse than a gun”.
These were oral observations made during the hearing. They were not findings that Meta or the feature had infringed copyright.
The Court did not identify the feature by name. The feature described appears to correspond to Instagram’s “Remix” feature, which allows users to create a new reel using an existing public reel or video. This identification is based on the description reported about the hearing and was not a formal identification by the Court.
Meta’s counsel, Advocate Varun Pathak, said he would look into the concerns raised by the Court.
Senior Advocate Diya Kapur, appearing for Divyakirti, pointed to instances of alleged manipulation and copyright infringement involving his lectures. She submitted that portions of his lectures had allegedly been selectively used to portray him as Hindu-phobic and anti-Brahmin.
Kapur also referred to deepfake videos using Divyakirti’s image, including one allegedly used for a betting advertisement. Divyakirti’s case alleges that his copyrights and moral rights have been violated through impersonation on fake social media profiles, deepfakes and fake endorsements.
Kapur further submitted that Divyakirti was not claiming a violation of the Information Technology Act but was asserting constitutional and proprietary rights before the Court. She also argued that the forum under the IT Act was overburdened.
Meta’s counsel, meanwhile, submitted that Divyakirti could avail himself of remedies under the Information Technology Act and Rules. Pathak argued that it was not feasible to expect social media intermediaries to constantly monitor content and said that the copyright-strike process was automated.
The hearing also addressed the consequences of copyright strikes. Kapur accused platforms of “playing God” by suspending accounts without first examining whether a copyright complaint was genuine. Pathak rejected the allegation.
According to the report of the hearing, Justice Bhambhani also observed that fake copyright strikes could create an unfair situation where the person filing the strike succeeds immediately while the affected person may have to go through a lengthy process to restore their account or content.
The Court granted Divyakirti interim relief by directing the takedown of certain deepfake videos and other web links. The Court also issued summons in the suit. A detailed order is expected to follow.
Background & Context
Divyakirti is an educator and the founder of the Drishti IAS coaching centre. He has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights, along with his copyright and moral rights.
The suit was filed by advocate Sumeer Sodhi.
The case concerns allegations involving the unauthorised use of Divyakirti’s identity and creative work online, including fake social media profiles, deepfake videos, alleged manipulation of his lectures and alleged fake endorsements.
The Delhi High Court has recently dealt with several personality-rights disputes involving public figures and the online use of their names, images and likenesses.
Divyakirti’s suit was not included in a batch of three personality-rights matters filed by Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan, in which the Court is expected to examine the broader contours of personality rights. His case is therefore proceeding separately.
The dispute brings together questions concerning personality rights, copyright protection, deepfakes and the responsibilities of social media intermediaries.
Key Details
Court/Forum: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Date of Hearing: 29 September 2026
Case Title: Dr Vikas Divyakirti v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case No./Citation: CS(COMM) 1015/2026
Rights in Issue: Personality rights, copyright and moral rights
Statute Raised by Meta: Information Technology Act and Rules
Parties: Plaintiff Dr Vikas Divyakirti; Defendants Meta Platforms Inc. and others
Counsel: Senior Advocate Diya Kapur for Divyakirti; Advocate Varun Pathak for Meta
Current Status: Interim relief granted for the takedown of certain deepfake videos and other web links; summons issued; detailed order awaited; Meta’s counsel to look into the concerns raised by the Court.
Why It Matters
The hearing raises a broader platform-accountability question beyond Divyakirti’s individual dispute: when a social media platform builds tools that allow users to reuse and modify other people’s videos, how much responsibility should the platform bear if those tools are allegedly used to infringe another person’s rights?
The Delhi High Court has not answered that question at this stage.
Justice Bhambhani’s comments were oral observations made during the hearing. They do not establish that Meta’s feature infringes copyright, nor do they determine whether Meta is legally liable for the actions of its users.
The significance of the hearing lies in the questions being placed before a major social media platform. The hearing indicates that the design and operation of platform features may themselves become relevant in disputes involving allegedly manipulated or unauthorised content.
At the same time, the existence of a content-reuse feature does not by itself establish copyright infringement or intermediary liability. Those questions depend on the particular conduct, the rights being asserted and the applicable legal framework.
The hearing also highlights a tension between the positions of the two sides.
Divyakirti’s side argues that platforms should do more when their systems are allegedly being used to facilitate impersonation, deepfakes or unauthorised use of protected material.
Meta, on the other hand, has pointed to remedies available under the Information Technology Act and Rules. Its counsel has also argued that requiring intermediaries to continuously monitor content is not feasible and could result in an extensively monitored internet.
The copyright-strike discussion raises another issue. Automated systems can help platforms process large volumes of complaints, but disputed strikes can also affect creators whose content or accounts are removed. The reported observation concerning fake copyright strikes highlights the procedural difficulty faced by users who challenge such actions.
For law students and practitioners, the dispute brings together three important areas of emerging digital law: personality rights in the age of deepfakes, intermediary obligations and remedies under the Information Technology Act framework, and the operation and fairness of automated copyright-enforcement systems.
The detailed order will be important in understanding how the Court approaches these questions.
For now, the allegations made by Divyakirti, Meta’s submissions and the judge’s oral observations must remain distinct from any final determination on the merits.
Reactions
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani described the feature discussed during the hearing as a “tool for copyright violation” and said the situation was “worse than a gun”. These were oral observations during the hearing and not a finding that Meta was liable for copyright infringement.
Advocate Varun Pathak, appearing for Meta, said he would look into the concerns raised by the Court. He also argued that constant monitoring of content by social media intermediaries was not feasible and pointed to the automated nature of the copyright-strike process.
Senior Advocate Diya Kapur, appearing for Divyakirti, accused platforms of “playing God” in relation to account suspensions and argued that the forum under the Information Technology Act was overburdened.
Closing
The Delhi High Court’s 29 September hearing has placed platform design, content reuse and intermediary responsibility under scrutiny alongside Divyakirti’s claims concerning personality rights, copyright and deepfakes.
However, the central legal questions remain open. The Court has granted interim relief and indicated that a detailed order will follow, while the competing claims have not been finally determined.
The next stage of the proceedings will show how the Court approaches the relationship between platform features, user conduct and the legal remedies available when a person’s identity or creative work is allegedly misused online.
Opportunities don’t wait. Neither should you.
Join 1 Lakh+ law students connected with Lexibal and stay updated with internships, opportunities, competitions and important updates.
Join WhatsApp Channel
