COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL ON LEGAL REMEDIES AGAINST YOUTUBE STRIKES POLICY
Kerala Case Highlights YouTube Copyright Strikes: What Indian Law Says About Remedies for Creators
Copyright strikes can silence creators, but Indian law offers remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957
Kerala High Court case shows how free speech and digital platform rules collide in India
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: January 12, 2026:
In January 2026, the Kerala High Court admitted a writ petition filed by Liyakkathali C, a rationalist and YouTuber popularly known as an “Ex-Muslim.” His channel faced imminent termination after multiple copyright strikes. The case is not just about one creator’s struggle; it raises larger questions about how copyright laws are applied on platforms like YouTube, and whether these rules are being misused to suppress dissenting voices.
Also Read: Capital Gains Tax on Inherited Property: What Families Must Know Before Selling Homes in India
This controversy has sparked a debate on the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and safeguarding free speech in the digital age. It also highlights the remedies available under Indian law when copyright strikes are used unfairly.
What Are YouTube Copyright Strikes?
- Copyright Claim vs. Copyright Strike:
- A copyright claim usually relates to monetisation. The rights holder claims ad revenue from a video.
- A copyright strike is more serious. It means the video has been taken down for violating copyright. Three strikes can lead to permanent channel termination.
- How Strikes Work:
- Issued when a copyright owner formally requests removal of content.
- YouTube enforces the strike, affecting the creator’s account standing.
- Strikes can restrict live streaming, monetisation, and eventually lead to channel deletion.
Indian Legal Framework
- Copyright Act, 1957: Governs all copyright issues in India. It protects original works of authorship, including literary, artistic, musical, and cinematographic works.
- Fair Use / Fair Dealing: Section 52 of the Act allows limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, review, reporting, or education. This is crucial for creators who use clips for commentary or satire.
- IT Rules, 2021: Platforms like YouTube are classified as “significant social media intermediaries.” They must follow due diligence, including grievance redressal mechanisms.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Bars Victims from Filing Second Appeal Against Acquittal
Remedies Available Under Indian Law
- Counter-Notice to YouTube:
- Creators can file a counter-notice if they believe the strike is invalid.
- YouTube may reinstate the video unless the copyright owner files a lawsuit.
- Civil Remedies:
- Creators can approach civil courts under the Copyright Act.
- Courts can grant injunctions, damages, or declare misuse of copyright claims.
- High Court Writ Petitions:
- As seen in Kerala, creators can challenge platform actions if they violate constitutional rights like free speech.
- Courts can direct platforms to act fairly and prevent misuse of copyright strikes.
- Criminal Remedies:
- In cases of malicious or fraudulent copyright claims, criminal liability may arise under provisions of the Copyright Act.
The Kerala High Court Case
- Petitioner: Liyakkathali C, a rationalist YouTuber.
- Issue: His channel faced termination after multiple copyright strikes.
- Court’s Action: Justice Ziyad Rahman admitted the writ petition and issued notice to the Union government and Google India.
- Significance: The case challenges not just copyright strikes but also the constitutionality of the IT Rules, 2021, which govern digital platforms.
Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies Companies Act: Section 448 Must Be Read with Section 447
Why This Case Matters
- Free Speech vs. Copyright: Raises the question of whether copyright strikes are being weaponised to silence criticism.
- Platform Accountability: Highlights the power imbalance between individual creators and global platforms like YouTube.
- Legal Precedent: Could set a benchmark for how Indian courts handle disputes involving digital platforms and copyright.
Challenges for Creators
- Lack of Awareness: Many creators do not fully understand copyright law.
- Global Rules vs. Local Law: YouTube follows international copyright standards, but Indian law has its own nuances.
- Risk of Misuse: Copyright strikes can be misused by opponents to silence critical voices.
Expert Views
Legal experts argue that while copyright protection is essential, platforms must ensure that strikes are not misused. They suggest:
- Stronger grievance redressal mechanisms.
- Transparency in how strikes are issued.
- Judicial oversight when strikes affect free speech.
Also Read: ITAT Chandigarh Rules Section 269SS Not Applicable to One-Time Cash Sale Payments
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court case is a wake-up call for both creators and lawmakers. It shows that copyright strikes are not just technical issues but can have serious implications for free speech and democracy. Indian law provides remedies, but awareness and judicial intervention are crucial to ensure fairness.
As digital platforms grow in influence, India must strike a balance between protecting intellectual property and safeguarding the voices of its citizens.
Suggested Keywords for Faster Searches
- YouTube copyright strikes India
- Kerala High Court YouTube case
- Copyright Act 1957 remedies YouTube
- Fair use law India YouTube
- IT Rules 2021 YouTube strikes
- Kerala Ex-Muslim YouTuber case
- YouTube free speech India
- Copyright strike vs claim India
Also Read: Budget 2026 May Raise Tax Relief on Savings and FD Interest