Conventional injunctions have proved inadequate to curb online piracy. Rogue websites can evade static blocking orders by adopting or redirecting users to new domain names, creating mirror websites or using alphanumeric domain variations. Rights holders are therefore left to chase a moving target.

Dynamic Injunctions

In a 2019 decision[1], courts in India expanded on the conventional injunction orders by permitting the plaintiff to implead new websites in the ongoing case, where such newly created or discovered websites were mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric versions of the originally impleaded website. It further directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit setting out the details of such rogue websites. The Joint Registrar of the Delhi High Court, on being satisfied with the affidavit, would direct the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to restrain such future websites.

The Court noted that there had been some developments internationally, including the Singapore High Court’s approach in Disney Enterprises v. M1 Limited [2018] SGHC 206, where such ‘dynamic injunctions’ were granted, although limited to mirror websites. It also noted that it was undesirable for a court to have to constantly monitor and adjudicate on the issue of such rogue websites, especially as they often multiply in the form of a hydra-headed monster.

Dynamic+ Injunctions

Although dynamic injunctions spare plaintiffs from instituting multiple proceedings against rogue websites, they do not fully address the speed at which mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric variants emerge. By the time a plaintiff files an affidavit identifying such websites, further variants may already have appeared. This created a need for a mechanism enabling Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to act promptly, without awaiting verification by the Joint Registrar. Accordingly, in 2024, the Delhi High Court permitted plaintiffs to notify DNRs and ISPs directly of newly identified rogue websites, subject to filing the requisite affidavit before the Court within 24 hours of such notification. The Court also granted DNRs and ISPs the liberty to approach it if they had any reservations regarding the plaintiff’s communication. Recognising that mirror websites can emerge within minutes, the Court reinforced the need for injunctions that are “dynamic+” in nature.

Protection Beyond Websites: Superlative Injunctions

Subsequent decisions expanded the scope of dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions beyond rogue websites to encompass unauthorised live streams, online games, and mobile applications. In matters concerning the unlawful live streaming of copyrighted content, courts permitted plaintiffs to place newly identified infringing websites before the Joint Registrar by way of affidavit.

In 2025, the Delhi High Court further extended this form of relief to protect the personality rights of a spiritual guru. Recognising the impracticality of requiring a plaintiff to pursue numerous online infringers individually, the Court granted protection against the unauthorised exploitation of the public figure’s name, image, likeness, voice, and appearance. This approach was subsequently reinforced in cases involving digital identity misuse through AI-generated voices, digital avatars, and manipulated images.

Accordingly, the courts extended relief to newly identified links, applications, and online content, thereby protecting personality rights against evolving forms of digital replication and manipulation.

Finding the Right Balance

Although dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions seek to address the hydra-headed proliferation of rogue websites, they have also raised concerns among Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Domain Name Registrars (DNRs). These intermediaries contend that requiring them to decide which websites or domains should be blocked would compel them to exercise adjudicatory discretion and thereby compromise their neutral role.

The resulting challenge is to preserve the efficiency of dynamic relief without transferring the judicial function to intermediaries. Plaintiffs should not be required to return to court whenever a new variant appears; however, the ultimate determination of whether a website is liable to be blocked must remain with the court.

In a recent decision[2], the Delhi High Court sought to strike this balance by permitting plaintiffs to furnish ISPs and DNRs with particulars of newly identified rogue websites. The intermediaries’ role is confined to technical verification—namely, determining whether the identified website is a mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variant of a website already covered by the injunction. Where that technical correspondence is established, the existing injunction may be implemented against the variant.

The Court clarified that such verification is technical rather than adjudicatory. Accordingly, an ISP or DNR acting within this limited role does not independently determine infringement and should not, on that account, forfeit the safe-harbor protection available to intermediaries.

The Court nevertheless declined to allow an injunction to extend automatically without judicial oversight. A plaintiff may furnish the relevant ISP or DNR with an affidavit and supporting material identifying a website as a mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variant of an already injuncted website. Upon technical verification, the injunction may be implemented against that website on a pro tem basis, pending the plaintiff’s simultaneous application to the Court for formal confirmation. The intermediary’s role remains purely technical, while the final decision on whether the website should continue to be blocked rests with the Court. This framework facilitates prompt enforcement without diluting judicial control.

Conclusion

The evolution of dynamic-injunction jurisprudence from UTV Software Communication Limited v. 1337X.to And Other, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 to Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5967 reflects the efforts of Indian courts to ensure effective enforcement against digital piracy while preserving procedural safeguards. The remaining question is whether statutory intervention is required to codify and streamline the principles governing the grant of such injunctions.