The Bombay High Court has directed internet service providers (ISPs) and digital platforms to remove or block pirated content from the film Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana within three hours of receiving a takedown notice from its copyright owner, Godpower Media Private Limited, or its authorised representative. The direction, issued on November 6, 2026, sets a strict response deadline for intermediaries after pirated material began appearing online following the film’s theatrical release on November 5. The court has also instructed platforms and service providers to provide designated nodal officers’ contact details and confirm their ability to respond to takedown requests in real time.
The latest direction was passed by Justice Ashish S. Chavan of the Bombay High Court in a follow-up application filed by Godpower Media. It strengthens an earlier anti-piracy injunction issued on November 2 by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, which restrained unidentified individuals and entities from illegally recording, copying, uploading, streaming or distributing the film. The November 6 order adds a measurable three-hour deadline to the earlier requirement for immediate action. The case highlights the growing importance of rapid copyright enforcement as pirated videos and links can spread across websites, social media platforms, messaging services and file-sharing networks shortly after a major film’s release.
Key Takeaways
- The Bombay High Court has ordered platforms and internet service providers to remove or block pirated Ramayana content within three hours of receiving a valid takedown notice.
- The direction was issued on November 6, 2026, by Justice Ashish S. Chavan.
- The case was filed by Godpower Media Private Limited, which claims copyright ownership over the film.
- Platforms must provide the name, email address and telephone number of a designated nodal officer.
- Intermediaries must confirm in writing that they have systems and personnel capable of responding in real time.
- The latest order supplements an earlier dynamic anti-piracy injunction issued on November 2.
- The directions cover internet service providers and digital platform defendants identified in the case.
- The matter is scheduled to be heard again on December 16, 2026.
Bombay High Court Sets Three-Hour Piracy Takedown Deadline
The Bombay High Court’s latest direction follows concerns raised by Godpower Media after the theatrical release of Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana.
The film’s copyright owner approached the court again after pirated material reportedly began appearing across multiple online platforms.
Godpower Media argued that even a delay of a few hours in processing takedown requests could allow unauthorised copies to spread rapidly. Once a pirated video is uploaded, it can be downloaded, copied and redistributed through different websites and accounts, making subsequent removal more difficult.
The company had previously secured an interim anti-piracy injunction on November 2. However, it submitted that several internet service providers and platforms had not confirmed that they would act immediately on its takedown requests.
The matter was brought before vacation judge Justice Ashish S. Chavan on November 6.
After considering the submissions and additional material filed by the company, the court accepted that its concerns were genuine. The judge noted that infringing content had appeared across multiple platforms after the film’s theatrical release.
The court then directed the relevant intermediaries to act immediately on each takedown or blocking notice issued by Godpower Media or its authorised representative, and in any event within three hours of receiving it. <Cite refs={[“turn495849search0″,”turn443455search2”]} />
What Exactly Has the Court Ordered?
The November 6 direction goes beyond asking digital platforms to remove pirated links quickly.
It establishes specific operational requirements intended to make compliance easier to monitor.
The court directed the internet service providers and platform defendants to:
- Remove content within three hours: Act immediately on every takedown or blocking notice issued by Godpower Media or its authorised representative, with three hours as the maximum deadline.
- Confirm compliance in writing: Provide written confirmation that they will comply with the order on an immediate, real-time basis.
- Maintain operational systems: Confirm that appropriate systems and personnel are in place to handle takedown requests.
- Appoint designated nodal officers: Provide the name, email address and telephone number of an officer responsible for immediate responses.
These requirements are intended to establish a clear communication channel between the copyright owner and the intermediaries responsible for removing or blocking infringing material.
| Court direction | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Takedown deadline | Within three hours of receiving notice |
| Response | Immediate action required |
| Written confirmation | Mandatory |
| Operational readiness | Systems and personnel must be in place |
| Nodal officer | Name, email address and phone number to be provided |
| Issuing party | Godpower Media or its authorised representative |
The directions are subject to further orders by the regular bench. <Cite refs={[“turn443455search2″,”turn443455search3”]} />
Why Godpower Media Approached the Court Again
Godpower Media had already approached the Bombay High Court before the film’s theatrical release, seeking protection against unauthorised recording and distribution.
The company argued that the film had faced piracy-related risks even before reaching cinemas.
According to the earlier court proceedings, portions of the first trailer had been recorded without permission during an invitation-only event held on July 18, 2026, at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi.
The event was subject to confidentiality agreements, but the company said unauthorised recordings subsequently circulated on social media platforms.
It also raised concerns about portions of the second trailer, which was released on October 15, appearing online without authorisation.
Godpower Media argued that the same problem could become more serious after the full film reached theatres.
The company therefore sought protection covering unauthorised recording, copying, uploading, downloading, hosting, streaming, broadcasting and distribution of the film and its copyrighted material.
After the theatrical release on November 5, the company reported that infringing content had appeared on multiple platforms. It then sought the additional three-hour deadline to make the earlier injunction more effective.
The November 6 order was therefore a follow-up to the protection already granted, rather than an entirely separate copyright case. <Cite refs={[“turn443455search1″,”turn495849search0”]} />
What Is a Dynamic Anti-Piracy Injunction?
One of the important legal aspects of the case is the use of a dynamic injunction.
A conventional copyright injunction can identify particular websites, links or individuals involved in unauthorised distribution.
However, online piracy operators can frequently change their web addresses, create mirror websites or move material to different platforms.
A website blocked today may reappear under a different domain name tomorrow. A pirated video removed from one account may also be uploaded by another user.
A dynamic injunction is designed to address this continuing problem.
It allows a copyright owner to notify relevant intermediaries about newly identified infringing links or websites, subject to the terms of the court’s order.
This can help extend the practical effect of the injunction to newly identified locations carrying the same unauthorised material without requiring a separate court order for every new link.
How the mechanism works
Step 1: Copyright owner identifies piracy
The copyright holder or its authorised representative identifies a website, URL, social media post or other location carrying unauthorised material.
Step 2: Takedown notice is issued
The rights holder communicates the relevant information to the concerned internet service provider or digital platform.
Step 3: Intermediary blocks or removes the content
Under the latest direction, the relevant intermediary must act immediately and within three hours of receiving the notice.
Step 4: Compliance is documented
The intermediary must provide written confirmation and maintain the required nodal officer contact details and operational arrangements.
The mechanism is intended to reduce the time between identifying piracy and restricting access to the infringing material. <Cite refs={[“turn443455search1″,”turn443455search2”]} />
Which Platforms and Internet Service Providers Are Covered?
The original copyright suit named 35 defendants, including unidentified piracy operators, internet service providers, telecom service providers, social media platforms and government departments.
The court documents identify several categories of defendants.
| Defendant category | Role in the case |
|---|---|
| Defendant No. 1 | Unidentified piracy operators and entities |
| Defendants No. 2–28 | Internet and telecom service providers |
| Defendants No. 29–33 | Social media and messaging platforms |
| Defendants No. 34–35 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications |
The original proceedings also sought action against websites, mirror domains, redirect services, torrent platforms, cyberlockers, file-sharing portals, streaming websites, social media accounts and messaging groups.
The November 6 direction specifically applies to the ISP and platform defendants covered by the proceedings.
The order should not be interpreted as a blanket three-hour legal deadline for every copyright complaint involving every platform in India. It is a case-specific judicial direction relating to the film and the defendants in this litigation. <Cite refs={[“turn443455search1″,”turn443455search2”]} />
What Is the Film Ramayana at the Centre of the Dispute?
The case concerns Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana, a large-scale adaptation of the Indian epic.
The film is directed by Nitesh Tiwari and features Ranbir Kapoor, Sai Pallavi, Yash and Sunny Deol, among other actors.
The first part of the two-film project was released theatrically on November 5, 2026.
According to the claims made by Godpower Media in the court proceedings, the first film has an estimated production budget of approximately ₹2,000 crore, while the combined budget of the two-film project is around ₹4,000 crore.
The company also told the court that the production involved more than 10,000 people worldwide and that its visual effects were being executed by DNEG.
The original score is jointly composed by A.R. Rahman and Hans Zimmer, according to the plaintiff’s submissions.
These production details were presented as part of Godpower Media’s explanation of the scale of the project and the potential financial damage caused by piracy. They are claims recorded in the proceedings, not independent findings by the court.
The film’s scale and international release ambitions help explain why the copyright holder sought extensive protection against unauthorised distribution. <Cite refs={[“turn443455search1″,”turn495849search0”]} />
Why a Three-Hour Deadline Matters for the Film Industry
The three-hour deadline could have wider implications for how major film releases are protected against digital piracy.
The first few days after a theatrical release are particularly important for movie distributors and producers.
A film may generate significant revenue through cinema tickets, while its producers and distribution partners also prepare for subsequent digital and television licensing arrangements.
If a complete pirated copy becomes widely available online, it can potentially affect the commercial value of these distribution windows.
Piracy can spread quickly across multiple platforms
Online piracy does not depend on a single website.
Unauthorised copies can circulate through:
- Video-sharing websites.
- Social media platforms.
- Messaging groups and channels.
- Torrent networks.
- File-hosting services.
- Unauthorised streaming websites.
- Mirror and redirect websites.
Removing one copy may not eliminate the problem because another account or website can upload the same material.
A shorter takedown deadline is intended to reduce the period during which infringing material remains accessible.
Faster responses can improve enforcement
The court’s direction also addresses a practical challenge: knowing whom to contact when infringing content appears.
By requiring designated nodal officers and their contact details, the court has established a specific communication channel for the rights holder.
Written confirmation of operational readiness also makes it easier to establish whether intermediaries have arrangements to respond to notices.
However, the actual effectiveness of the system will depend on the accuracy of notices, the ability to identify infringing material and the speed with which platforms and service providers implement blocking or removal.
What the Order Means for Digital Platforms
For the intermediaries named in the proceedings, the direction creates a tighter operational requirement.
Platforms and ISPs will need to ensure that takedown requests relating to the film can be received, assessed and acted upon within the specified time.
This may require coordination between legal, trust-and-safety, copyright enforcement and technical teams.
The nodal officer requirement is also important because copyright owners need an identifiable contact rather than relying entirely on general customer-support channels.
The written confirmation requirement creates an additional record of the intermediary’s compliance arrangements.
However, the order does not eliminate the need to assess whether the reported material is actually infringing. The rights holder’s notice must relate to content covered by the court’s directions and its copyright claim.
The court’s order is specific to the dispute involving Godpower Media and the named defendants. It should not be treated as a general ruling that every copyright complaint must automatically be resolved within three hours.
What Happens Next in the Ramayana Piracy Case?
The November 6 direction is an interim measure and remains subject to further orders by the regular bench.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on December 16, 2026.
The earlier November 2 order had already granted interim protection against unauthorised recording and distribution of the film. The latest direction adds the three-hour compliance deadline and specific requirements relating to written confirmation and nodal officers.
The next hearing will provide an opportunity for the court to consider the progress of the proceedings and any further submissions by the parties.
The final outcome of the underlying copyright suit has not yet been decided.
The case is titled Godpower Media Private Limited v. John Doe(s) & Ors., and the November 6 direction was issued in Interim Application (L) No. 37234 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 37230 of 2026. <Cite refs={[“turn443455search2″,”turn443455search3”]} />
The Bigger Picture
The Bombay High Court’s three-hour direction highlights a growing challenge for the entertainment industry: copyright protection must operate at the speed of online distribution. A pirated film can move rapidly between websites, social media accounts and file-sharing networks, making delayed enforcement less effective. By imposing a measurable deadline and requiring designated nodal officers, the court has attempted to make the takedown process more immediate and accountable in this particular case.
The development could also influence how producers approach anti-piracy protection for expensive film projects. However, the effectiveness of the order will depend on implementation, the quality of takedown notices and the ability to identify newly created piracy links. The case also demonstrates that dynamic injunctions and coordinated action by intermediaries are becoming important tools in protecting copyrighted entertainment content in the digital environment.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the Bombay High Court order regarding Ramayana piracy?
The Bombay High Court directed the relevant internet service providers and digital platforms to block or remove pirated Ramayana content within three hours of receiving a takedown notice from Godpower Media or its authorised representative.
2. When did the court issue the three-hour deadline?
Justice Ashish S. Chavan issued the direction on November 6, 2026.
3. Who filed the piracy case?
Godpower Media Private Limited filed the copyright infringement suit relating to Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana.
4. Why did the court impose a three-hour deadline?
Godpower Media told the court that pirated content had appeared across multiple platforms following the theatrical release and that delays could allow unauthorised material to spread rapidly.
5. Do platforms have to appoint nodal officers?
The court directed the relevant platforms and internet service providers to provide the name, email address and telephone number of a designated nodal officer for immediate responses.
6. What is a dynamic injunction?
A dynamic injunction allows a rights holder to notify intermediaries about newly identified infringing links or mirror websites, subject to the court’s directions. It helps address piracy that shifts between different online locations.
7. Does the three-hour deadline apply to every copyright complaint in India?
No. The direction is part of a specific interim order concerning Godpower Media’s copyright suit and the defendants named in the proceedings. It is not a blanket three-hour deadline for every copyright complaint.
8. Which film is covered by the order?
The order concerns Namit Malhotra’s Ramayana, directed by Nitesh Tiwari and starring Ranbir Kapoor, Sai Pallavi, Yash and Sunny Deol, among others.
9. When will the case be heard again?
The matter is scheduled for December 16, 2026.
10. Does the order mean the copyright case has been finally decided?
No. The three-hour direction is interim relief. The underlying copyright dispute has not been finally decided.
Looking Ahead
The next stage of the case will focus on compliance with the three-hour takedown requirement and the broader copyright proceedings. The December 16 hearing will be an important opportunity for the court to review the matter, while Godpower Media will continue to rely on the order to request the removal or blocking of newly identified pirated links. The practical impact will depend on whether the relevant intermediaries can respond within the specified deadline.
For India’s film industry, the case provides an example of how courts can use dynamic injunctions and operational requirements to address online piracy. The order does not eliminate unauthorised distribution, but it creates a more specific response framework for the film’s copyright owner and the intermediaries named in the case. Its implementation may offer useful lessons for future copyright disputes involving large theatrical releases and digital distribution.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
