[3 Copyright Strikes on YouTube] Can Channel be restored via Writ Petition? Uttarakhand HC Answers

Banned for 3 Copyright Strikes on YouTube, can the channel be restored by filing a writ petition before a High Court? The Uttarakhand High Court has disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to YouTube to restore a deleted channel, holding that the dispute arising from an agreement between the petitioner and YouTube, cannot be resolved through the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

Case Details

• Case Number: WPMS/2267/2026
• Court: Uttarakhand High Court
• Bench: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
• Parties: Swati Alias Smriti Negi (Petitioner) vs Union of India & Others (Respondents)
• Date of Order: 4th August 2026

Case for YouTube Account/Channel Restore

The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a YouTube channel restore direction from Uttarakhand High Court. Specifically, three reliefs were sought: 

1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate and restore the petitioner's channel to its original standing, along with the content deleted or removed by respondent no. 3, and to remove all copyright strikes recorded against the channel.
2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to settle the grievance between the petitioner and respondent no. 3.
3. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary action on the grievance or representation submitted by the petitioner.

In substance, the petitioner wanted the Court to direct YouTube to carry out a YouTube Account restoration, reversing the deletion of her channel. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the account had been deleted by YouTube on account of alleged three copyright strikes, without any notice or opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner beforehand. 

Background

The Uttarkhand HC highlighted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with YouTube containing certain terms and conditions. The petitioner's case, as argued by her counsel, was that she had not violated any of the terms or conditions of that agreement, and that her channel was nonetheless deleted over the alleged three copyright strikes. Petitioner contended that the deletion of the channel, based on alleged copyright strikes, was carried out without notice or a hearing. 

Writ against YouTube Channel Deletion

The Uttarakhand High Court held that the relief sought against YouTube could not be granted in a writ petition. The Bench observed that since the petitioner had entered into an agreement with YouTube, if YouTube finds that any one or more of the terms and conditions settled between the parties has been violated, the petitioner's account can be deleted under that agreement. 

The Court further recorded that it is well settled in law that the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for settling a contractual dispute or claims arising out of a contract. From the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, the Court found that the petitioner's claim was based on the agreement she had entered into with YouTube, and that other remedies were available to her for resolving the dispute. The Court stated that the public law remedy under Article 226 is not a remedy available for resolving such a dispute. 

Accordingly, the writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail such remedy as is available to her under law. 

What This Means for Those Seeking to Restore a Deleted YouTube Channel

While the article is confined to what the order itself records, the underlying dispute reflects a question many channel owners face: how to restore a deleted YouTube account after it has been taken down over alleged copyright violations. As recorded in this order, the Court's position was that such disputes, being contractual in nature, arising from the terms of service agreement between a user and YouTube, fall outside the scope of a writ petition filed against YouTube directly, at least where YouTube's status as "State" under Article 12 is contested by the respondents. 

The order also touches upon YouTube's three strike policy, under which a channel can be removed after multiple copyright strikes are recorded against it. The petitioner's grievance, as recorded in the order, was that the strikes were imposed and the channel deleted without notice or a hearing. The Uttarakhand High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of whether the strikes were validly imposed, but disposed of the petition on the ground of maintainability and the availability of alternate remedies.