The Karnataka High Court (HC) has stayed criminal proceedings against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited over the sale of pirated copies of late Kannada journalist and Hai Bangalore founder Ravi Belagere’s book, ‘Heli Hogu Karana’. Vacation Bench Justice K V Aravind passed the interim stay order on Tuesday, while hearing Amazon’s petition to quash the FIR, according to a Bar and Bench report. The court issued notice to the state and to Bhavana Belagere, the journalist’s daughter, who filed the complaint. The next hearing is scheduled for the third week of June.

What the complaint says: Bhavana alleged that unknown sellers used Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho to sell pirated copies at Rs 149 against the maximum retail price of Rs 350, causing losses to Bhavana Publications. The Subramanyapura Police registered an FIR against all three platforms under the Copyright Act, 1957, invoking:

• Section 51(1)(b): copyright infringement.
• Section 63: knowingly facilitating the sale of pirated material.

Only Amazon has challenged the FIR. Flipkart and Meesho have not filed petitions.

Amazon’s argument: The company told the court it operates through agreements with third-party sellers who independently list products and set prices, and that it only facilitates listings and transactions. It invoked Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which contains a safe harbour provision that shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content, provided they exercise due diligence and act with actual knowledge of infringement.

“The investigating agency should have taken details from us and proceeded, if at all, against the seller under the Copyright Act. An intermediary does not come into the picture as an accused at all,” Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta submitted.

Amazon said it had already provided the following seller details to the investigating officer:

• Name, email ID and phone number.
• First and last sale dates.
• Sales volumes and related communications.

Why the Section 79 defence is contested: Section 79 safe harbour is not unconditional. Under Sections 79(2) and 79(3) of the IT Act, an intermediary loses immunity if it conspired, abetted or induced the unlawful act or if it fails to act after receiving actual knowledge of the infringing content. The Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgment clarified that actual knowledge is established when a court order directs a takedown, not merely through a private complaint.

The Karnataka High Court is simultaneously hearing X’s petition challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) as an independent content-blocking mechanism. Amazon’s case now puts the same court in the position of deciding how far the provision extends as a shield for platforms in copyright disputes.

Indian courts have not definitively settled whether Section 79 of the IT Act 2000 provides a safe harbour for copyright infringement on marketplace platforms. If the Karnataka HC accepts Amazon’s defence, it sets a precedent that platforms can discharge their copyright responsibility simply by handing over seller data, leaving rights holders to pursue individual sellers who are often untraceable. The June hearing will test where that line falls.

Also read:

• Delhi High Court Demands SOPs from Social Media Platforms After Delays in Police Information Requests
• Madras HC stays TN Police blocking order over lack of reasons
• Shreya Singhal targeted private censorship. Today’s threat is the State