Chandigarh and New Delhi: They gained thousands and thousands of views on their information content material on social media. Then the Aam Aadmi Occasion got here for them.
Since October final yr, the ruling occasion in Punjab has claimed copyright possession of not less than 48 movies and posts uploaded by journalists on Fb that had been essential of the Aam Aadmi Occasion (AAP) authorities.
4 Fb pages had been taken down between January and April 2026 after copyright infringement notices for content material AAP claimed as its personal. A fifth was eliminated after a Punjab police discover was despatched, which was individually hit with 5 copyright notices as nicely.
Collectively, the 5 pages had over 30 lakh followers once they had been taken down.
AAP has repeatedly accused different events, together with the Bharatiya Janata Occasion, of controlling and gagging the media. On August 7, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal accused the Narendra Modi authorities of focusing on social media customers who posted anti-establishment content material through the Gen Z protests, after his personal Instagram account, together with these of journalists and media homes, was restricted. He referred to as it an assault on basic rights.
However, in Punjab, the place AAP is in energy, the occasion has used the identical tactic it accuses others of. Over a number of months, AAP filed copyright infringement claims in opposition to journalists to legally power takedowns of their pages that had been essential of the Punjab authorities.
A copyright strike is a authorized penalty issued by a web based platform to take down content material when a real copyright proprietor claims their work was used with out permission.
The content material AAP flagged as copyright infringement included press releases from a Sikh spiritual physique, an opposition MLA’s picture, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s personal social media posts, AI-generated photos, a authorities notification on state board appointments, and images of the state legislative meeting. Pictures of Mann and different AAP leaders accounted for essentially the most copyright strikes. A lot of this content material was evidently not AAP’s to assert.
This isn’t the primary time AAP has focused the press. Since forming the federal government in Punjab in 2022, the occasion has confronted accusations of threatening journalists and RTI activists with police instances, blocking the circulation of newspapers together with The Indian Specific, running a “focused witch-hunt” of the Punjab Kesari group, and getting journalists’ social media accounts suspended. Opposition events called it a “chilling assault on press freedom.”
The 5 instances we seemed into included Fb accounts of RMB Tv, Lok Awaz TV, Maninderjeet Sidhu, Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal, and Parmeet Singh Bidowali. These pages are run by 4 vernacular journalists understanding of small cities to tier three cities in Punjab.
Between January and April, the affected journalists wrote to Fb’s grievance officer and filed appeals for content material and web page restoration.
Two of them approached the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket, alleging censorship via copyright strikes. One among them continues to be in courtroom. The second was withdrawn after the state authorities filed its reply detailing causes for takedown.
None of those measures led to restoration of pages.
The pages stayed inaccessible for months, till The Reporters’ Collective despatched a questionnaire to Meta, which owns Fb. “The content material and accounts had been eliminated in error and have since been restored,” a Meta spokesperson mentioned. 4 of the 5 pages had been restored, we discovered.
RMB Tv was restored on June 17, two days after the questions had been despatched. The opposite three – Lok Awaz TV, Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal and Parmeet Singh Bidowali – had been restored on June 22. The ‘Maninderjeet Sidhu’ web page stays down, blocked by a authorized demand from Punjab police.
As a precaution, Maninderjeet Singh Sidhu, who runs Lok Awaz TV, cleaned the web page of all AAP-related content material to keep away from additional copyright strikes. The opposite journalists have stored their outdated content material up on their restored pages.
The Software program Freedom Legislation Centre, a Delhi-based non-profit engaged on digital rights, mentioned the pages’ restoration reveals that automated moderation ends in “opaque and overbroad censorship.”
When requested in regards to the copyright strikes, AAP-Punjab’s media in-charge Baltej Pannu claimed the 4 males whose Fb pages had been deleted had been “not journalists.”
“If anybody who doesn’t have a correct diploma or qualification, and is indulging in baseless allegations [against AAP], we’ve to take motion,” mentioned Pannu.
In India, journalists require no diploma to observe journalism. Media practitioners together with frequent residents have the suitable to critique any authorities and their insurance policies. By exploiting mental property legal guidelines, AAP-Punjab has discovered a brand new approach to goal journalists essential of the state authorities. Often, non-public events use different authorized routes obtainable to them resembling defamation to go after critics.
However, we discovered three of the journalists focused by AAP have journalism levels, and the fourth is presently enrolled in a journalism course. One among them even interviewed Mann in 2019 earlier than AAP got here to energy in Punjab.
{{cta-block}}
What AAP Claimed as Their Content material
Digital rights consultants say this can be the primary time a political occasion in India has used copyright strikes for “censorship” at this scale. One skilled The Collective spoke to mentioned platforms usually tend to take away reported content material as a result of they are often held liable underneath the Data Know-how Guidelines, 2021.
Punjab’s vernacular digital retailers grew out of the 2020-21 farmers’ protest, as journalists annoyed with constraints of mainstream media moved on-line. Commercial income from views too attracted them to the web content material recreation. Whereas there is no such thing as a official rely, journalists in Punjab estimate round 200 such retailers, totally on Fb and YouTube.
Two of those platforms, Lok Awaz TV and Maninderjeet Sidhu, with 9.7 lakh and 4.5 lakh followers respectively, are run by Faridkot-based journalist Maninderjeet Singh Sidhu, who employs round 15 individuals. He runs his newsroom from a rented two-room workplace in Faridkot’s Jaitu.
AAP filed not less than 20 copyright strikes in opposition to Sidhu’s two pages. At the least 15 strikes introduced down the Lok Awaz TV web page in January. The Maninderjeet Sidhu web page was eliminated individually, for allegedly violating the IT Act in March. It was additionally hit with not less than 5 mental property rights (IPR) claims.
The flagged content material included photo of Mann, Kejriwal, and AAP MLAs protesting within the Punjab meeting. AAP instructed Fb that even AI-generated photos of Mann and Kejriwal, and a photograph of a Congress MLA, infringed its IPR.
On September 26, 2025, Lok Awaz TV posted a video of Sidhu commenting on AAP MLAs protesting in opposition to the Union authorities within the meeting. The video, nonetheless available on YouTube, contained 5 images of AAP MLAs holding placards calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Rs 1,600-crore flood aid a “jumla.”
The Collective traced one in every of these photos to AAP-Punjab’s personal deal with on X (previously Twitter). Nevertheless, Surinder Singh Moti, secretary to Speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan, mentioned no political occasion is authorised to take pictures contained in the meeting. And but AAP claimed possession of images taken from inside it. Repeated calls and electronic mail to the meeting secretary, Ram Lok Khatana, have gone unanswered. A questionnaire was despatched to the speaker as nicely.
The Punjab authorities additionally telecasts meeting proceedings on its YouTube channel.
The meeting rulebook bars journalists from photographing meeting proceedings. Reporters as a substitute depend on video grabs from the federal government’s personal Youtube telecast and official press releases.
In his January 20 letter to Fb’s grievance officer, Sidhu argued that posting publicly obtainable authorities content material doesn’t infringe upon “proprietary rights” for AAP. Repeated makes an attempt, he wrote, to resolve this matter amicably didn’t yield any substantive response from the occasion.
“Furthermore, the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat has not objected to using its content material, and the strikes have been issued evidently by a political occasion with no authorized management over the Vidhan Sabha,” the letter mentioned.
Sidhu’s different web page, Maninderjeet Sidhu, obtained not less than 5 IP claims together with authorized notices for eight movies individually underneath part 79(3)(b) of the Data Know-how (IT) Act, 2000, which says that platforms may be held liable if content material objected to by authorities isn’t eliminated. Fb pulled the movies down after Punjab police’s authorized discover.
The eight movies from February documented (here, here, here) alleged police motion in opposition to farmers in Bhatinda, amongst others. Sidhu approached the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket looking for restoration and the grounds for takedown.
In a March 20 discover to Fb, V Neeraja, extra director basic of police (cyber crime), referred to as the content material “factually distorted, one-sided, and extremely provocative,” focusing on Bhatinda’s senior superintendent of police, Jyoti Yadav, in accordance with the discover. Yadav is married to state Data & Public Relations Minister Harjot Singh Bains. Sidhu withdrew the petition on Could 20. Sidhu’s lawyer, Nikhil Ghai, mentioned, “We needed to know the grounds for the web page deletion. Since we now know the rationale, we are going to proceed in accordance with the legislation.” Sidhu is predicted to file a recent case difficult the grounds.
“Anybody who questions the federal government is attacked… via this new methodology of copyright claims,” Sidhu instructed The Collective.
Round 50 km south of Sidhu’s workplace, in Bhatinda’s Rampura Phul, Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal runs a studio with a three-person group from his home. His eponymous Fb web page bore 19 copyright strikes from AAP, resulting in its elimination on February 27. The web page had 3.24 lakh followers and three,200 posts when it was taken down.
In an electronic mail on March 10, Fb instructed Dhaliwal that his content material had been “reported a number of occasions by third events for infringing their mental property rights” and that the account was disabled “because of detection by our know-how.”
One deleted post associated to a press launch from Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, the very best temporal physique of the Sikhs. On January 13, Dhaliwal’s web page had shared the discharge with a remark noting that Chief Minister Mann’s look on the Akal Takhat secretariat had been modified from 10 am to 4.30 pm.
Greater than a month later, Fb instructed Dhaliwal the put up had been eliminated after an AAP-Punjab’s strike over a copyrighted materials, “a photograph.” The press launch or the put up contained no picture pointing to the arbitrariness of the method.
One other eliminated post used the identical digital poster Mann and AAP-Punjab had posted on their very own Instagram and Facebook pages. The poster promoted Mann authorities’s land pooling coverage. We couldn’t independently confirm the possession of the poster. Dhaliwal’s web page was later restored however this poster and the Akal Takhat press launch are nonetheless not seen.
A day after The Collective met Dhaliwal on Could 25, Punjab police visited his home over a video during which he claimed round 32 sitting AAP MLAs will not be fielded once more within the upcoming Punjab elections. A number of AAP MLAs filed, Dhaliwal claimed, pre-filled police complaints alleging the video unfold “false, fabricated and deceptive” info more likely to create “unrest and disturb the peace,” an act they termed anti-national. Cops from not less than six districts got here to query him over the next week. Dhaliwal has approached the excessive courtroom to remain the police proceedings in opposition to him.
In Bhatinda, digital journalist Jass Grewal misplaced his Fb web page, with 1.4 million followers, after three AAP copyright claims in April.
Among the many 48 posts eliminated, RMB Tv’s was the oldest, uploaded on January 7, 2022, asserting the eighth checklist of AAP’s candidates for the meeting polls. Fb instructed RMB Tv it had eliminated the put up after a third-party copyright criticism over a “picture.”
“In Delhi, Kejriwal retains speaking about Godi media. The truth is that press freedom is worse in Punjab than in Delhi. In Delhi, you’ve got Godi media, right here we’ve Keji media… In the event you communicate up, you might be choked,” Grewal mentioned, sitting in his rented workplace with 10 staff. He has since began a brand new web page with the identical title.
Parmeet Singh Bidowali’s web page, which began in 2021 and has 66,000 followers, was hit with not less than six IPR claims in February, resulting in its elimination. AAP claimed possession of one other Sri Akal Takhat Sahib press launch that Bidowali had posted on January 5. Right here too, the AAP wrongly claimed that its photo was used within the put up.
In his electronic mail to Fb, Bidowali wrote, “The copyright strike despatched by the Aam Aadmi Occasion is mistaken. As a result of it isn’t the property of Chief Minister Punjab Bhagwant Mann and the Aam Aadmi Occasion.”
Fb additionally eliminated 4 of Bidowali’s posts that had reshared Mann’s personal social media feedback, together with one which republished Mann’s tweet. The put up reportedly referred to a gathering between Radha Soami Satsang Beas head Gurinder Singh Dhillon and Shiromani Akali Dal chief Bikram Singh Majithia in jail. A number of hours after the assembly, Majithia was granted bail in a disproportionate property case. The Collective has seen three extra reshared posts (here, here, here). All have since been restored.
Amid all of this, Bidowali managed to guard a second Fb web page, Punjab Inside TV, with 45,000 followers, by deleting something remotely linked to AAP as strikes piled up. He now not makes use of images of Mann or any AAP chief, as a substitute he blacks out faces or uses AI sketches.
“In the course of the Emergency, newspapers ran clean editorial columns. Equally, in Punjab, we don’t present Mann’s face, as a precaution and mark of protest,” he mentioned.
Weaponising the Copyright Legislation
Not all journalists have switched to AI sketches. Some outstanding digital platforms in Punjab proceed to make use of movies and images of Mann and different cupboard ministers (here, here, here), suggesting the 5 Fb pages we reviewed had been focused by AAP for his or her criticism of the state authorities.
“The Mann authorities needed to make an instance out of us. That’s why they’ve picked on us,” mentioned Sidhu.
The takedowns additionally led to a monetary crunch. Journalists mentioned Fb accounted for practically half their earnings, the remainder coming from YouTube.
All 5 journalists began new pages after dropping their outdated ones. “After our web page was eliminated, it has, at occasions, turn out to be tough to pay salaries. However we’re managing,” mentioned Grewal, who employs round 10 individuals. The focused journalists have their YouTube and Instagram accounts intact.
Since November final yr, Chandigarh Press Membership has issued not less than seven press releases expressing issues over the state authorities’s “suppression” of press freedom.
Issues got here to a head on December 12, 2025, when Punjab cybercrime police filed an FIR in opposition to 9 individuals, together with three digital journalists and an RTI activist, and Lok Awaz TV, over reporting on the alleged misuse of Mann’s helicopter whereas he was in Japan. The excessive courtroom stayed the investigation.
Following this, digital journalists shaped a collective, the Press Di Azadi Bahal Karo Sangarsh Committee. It has held 4 protests since January within the state, the newest on Could 5 in Bhatinda.
A January 2, 2026 press launch by the Chandigarh Press Membership mentioned, “In latest occasions, there have been repeated incidents involving governments and state functionaries trying to manage, intimidate, or curb press freedom.” In a memorandum submitted to the Punjab governor Gulab Chand Kataria in June, the Membership flagged focusing on of social pages of unbiased journalists via copyright claims by AAP.
AAP’s Pannu mentioned the occasion was inside its proper to ship copyright strikes. “If the property, like video or different content material, belongs to the Aam Aadmi Occasion, they’ll ship it (copyright strike),” he mentioned.
When requested about copyright for others’ content material resembling press releases of Sri Akal Takhat, he mentioned he was not conscious of such cases.
The Collective’s questionnaire emailed to Kejriwal, Mann, AAP nationwide media in-charge Anurag Dhanda, and state president Aman Arora has not been responded to.
Personal vs Public Owned
Fb removes flagged content material for violating its “neighborhood requirements,” via what it describes as “automated know-how or a assessment group.” It says it “could promptly” remove reported content material earlier than contacting the one that posted it. In keeping with its own IP report, roughly 70 to 80 per cent of the reported content material on Fb and Instagram are taken down.
After a takedown, creators are knowledgeable by electronic mail or in-app notification, and given two choices: attraction, or contact the copyright proprietor. Fb shares the report quantity, the rights proprietor’s title and electronic mail, particulars of the criticism, and directions to file an attraction.
Enchantment selections may be challenged with an middleman’s grievance officer, and may be escalated to the Ministry of Electronics and Data Know-how’s Grievance Appellate Committee.
Fb defines copyright as a authorized proper that “protects authentic expression resembling phrases or photos,” not details or concepts, although it might defend the unique phrases or photos used to explain an thought.
Its truthful use coverage takes into consideration sure parameters like “function and character of the use”, nature of the copyrighted work, and the portion of content material used. The corporate additionally notes that truthful use exceptions fluctuate by nation.
Dhaliwal’s excessive courtroom petition argued that underneath Part 52 of the 1957 Copyright Act, use of content material for reporting present occasions, criticism, and assessment doesn’t rely as infringement. It additionally cited a piece underneath which authorities work is owned by the federal government except mentioned in any other case, questioning AAP-Punjab’s copyright declare.
A Supreme Court docket lawyer who has handled a number of copyright instances mentioned resharing Mann’s tweets for information falls inside truthful use.
“Bhagwant Mann arguably has the copyright declare on his tweets. Retweeting them with a commentary ought to come underneath truthful use. So, that’s arguably not a copyright violation,” mentioned the lawyer.
The petition mentioned such strikes have held journalism “hostage to political sensitivity,” and {that a} chief minister performing public features can’t, by any stretch of legislation, turn out to be non-public mental or private property.
The excessive courtroom, admitting the petition, directed the Union and Punjab governments, Meta, and AAP-Punjab to file affidavits by July 27 later prolonged to September 14.
Sidhu has made comparable arguments in his petition. Sidhu argued the eliminated content material was journalistic, based mostly on public occasions or statements, and that AAP can’t declare copyright over it. Sidhu’s petition centres on the police demand, whereas claiming his web page was erroneously struck.
Nikhil Pahwa, digital rights activist and editor of MediaNama, mentioned this can be the primary time {that a} political occasion is utilizing copyright strikes as a press “censorship” device.
“After all, there have been copyright strike instances most prominently involving ANI. Nevertheless it was completely different in its nature [commercial]. I’ve not come throughout any occasion the place a political occasion has used copyright strikes as a mechanism for censorship,” he instructed The Collective.
He added that social media platforms are susceptible to appearing rapidly on such complaints as a result of they’ve little time to assessment them and may be held liable. “It’s safer for them to take away content material as a substitute of letting or not it’s,” mentioned Pahwa.
Shocked on the scale of copyright strikes, a consultant of Software program Freedom Legislation Centre, the Delhi-based non-profit, mentioned focusing on creators via copyright strikes on Fb is a comparatively new development, which occurred totally on YouTube till lately.
“There was a rising development of copyright strikes on Meta platforms within the final three months,” mentioned the consultant. “We don’t know if the assessment of the copyrighted content material is automated or handbook. It’s opaque.”
