Delhi High Court Grants Injunction, Blocks Rogue Apps Illegally Streaming India–South Africa & India–New Zealand Cricket Tours
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia directed several rogue mobile applications and websites to cease unauthorized streaming of the upcoming South Africa and New Zealand cricket tours of India, thereby protecting the broadcaster’s exclusive media rights. Acting on an urgent plea, the Court restrained these platforms from transmitting any part of the 18-match series and directed domain registrars, service providers, and authorities to block access to the identified digital locations. The order, issued on November 11, 2025, will remain in force until March 3, 2026. A similar injunction was also issued on November 13 by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
Jiostar India Private Limited, the plaintiff, approached the Court seeking protection of its broadcast reproduction rights for two upcoming cricket series—the South Africa Tour of India 2025 and the New Zealand Tour of India 2026. These events were scheduled to be held between November 2025 and January 2026 and consisted of 18 matches. The plaintiff stated that it held exclusive global digital and television rights for these events pursuant to a media rights agreement with the BCCI, supported by confirmation letters issued in 2023 and 2024. The plaintiff asserted that its broadcasts would be delivered through its television channels and OTT platform.
The defendants—Cricfy TV and other associated platforms—were alleged to be rogue mobile applications and websites engaged in unauthorised streaming, communication, and dissemination of the plaintiff’s copyrighted content. According to the plaintiff, these platforms provided free or low-cost access to cricket broadcasts without permission and had previously streamed other BCCI events, including the West Indies Tour of India 2025. The plaintiff stated that these applications typically operated through Android Package Kits and frequently resurfaced under new domain names after blocking.
Domain name registrars were impleaded to block the associated domains and disclose information regarding the registrants. Internet service providers and government authorities were arrayed to assist in implementing any blocking measures. The plaintiff relied on its media rights agreement, BCCI confirmation letters, and details of the identified applications, websites, and user interfaces to demonstrate the ongoing risk of repetitive infringement and the need for urgent relief.
It noted that “the Plaintiff has secured the Exclusive Rights for various events, including, the Events as specified in the Rights Confirmation Letter dated 12.09.2023, through considerable financial investment.” The Court further observed that the events would be broadcast through the plaintiff’s channels and OTT platform, which are accessible across multiple digital devices.
The Court stated that “the unauthorized dissemination, telecasting, or broadcasting of the Events on Defendants’ Applications shall pose a significant threat to the Plaintiff’s revenue streams undermining the value of the considerable investment made by the Plaintiff in acquiring the Exclusive Rights.” It also recorded that the broadcast content, including footage and commentary, was protected under the Copyright Act and that unauthorized use would constitute infringement.
The Court recorded that “the issue of rogue apps engaging in the piracy of copyrighted content presents a recurring threat and disseminating or communicating any portions of the Events, without proper authorization or licensing from the Plaintiff, would violate the Plaintiff’s Exclusive Rights.” The Court referred to earlier judicial precedent granting a Dynamic+ injunction, quoting that such protection ensured that future works generated during the pendency of proceedings were not infringed before the Court could intervene.
The Court noted that “if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm would be caused to the Plaintiff.” It added that “immediate interim relief is required to be granted in this case, considering the live broadcast of the Events.” The Court recorded the risk of continued infringement through new domains, observing that “any delay in blocking access to the associated UI(s)/ URL(s)/ Website(s)… could lead to financial losses for the Plaintiff, and an irreparable breach of their Exclusive Rights.”
The Court restrained defendant nos. 1 to 4, including “their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principals or agents, acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them (and any other UI(s)/website(s) which appears to be associated with any of the defendant apps and website(s) based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator, or discovered to provide additional means of accessing, the Defendants’ Applications, and other domains/domain/apps/UI(s) along with their sub-domains and subdirectories, owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff’s exclusive broadcasting rights)” from “hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their Apps/UI(s)/website(s), through the internet in any manner whatsoever, the upcoming South Africa Tour of India 2025 and New Zealand Tour of India 2026.”
Defendant nos. 5 to 7, the domain name registrars, “to block and suspend the following Domain Names associated with Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 within 72 hours from the receipt of the Notice and copy of this Order” and listed the domains as reproduced in paragraph 31 of the order. The Court further directed defendant nos. 5 to 7 “to file an Affidavit in a sealed cover / password protected document disclosing the complete details of the abovementioned UI(s) / Website(s), as available… including e-mail addresses, mobile numbers, contact details, payment details and KYC details, within four weeks from the receipt of the Notice and copy of this Order.”
Defendant nos. 8 to 16, being ISPs/TSPs, “to block UI(s) / Website(s) as specified in Paragraph No. 31 of this Order, within 72 hours from the receipt of the Notice and copy of this Order by the Plaintiff’s Counsel.” Defendant nos. 17 and 18 “to issue necessary directions to all ISPs for blocking / removing access to the website(s) as specified in Paragraph No. 31 of this Order.”
The Court granted liberty to the plaintiff that “prior to or during the currency of the Events, if any further application(s)/ UI(s)/ website(s) are discovered… the Plaintiff is granted liberty to communicate the details… to Defendant Nos. 5 to 18 for blocking the said UI(s)/ website(s) on a real time basis without undue delay.” The Court directed that upon receiving such intimation, defendant nos. 8 to 16 “shall take steps to immediately block the said UI(s)/ website(s)” and defendant nos. 17 and 18 “shall also issue necessary blocking orders immediately upon the Plaintiff communicating the details.”
The plaintiff “shall continue to file Affidavits providing the details of the newly discovered application(s)/ UI(s)/ website(s), their Domain Names, and the URL(s), which are communicated and blocked… [and] also file appropriate applications for impleadment… and this Order shall be extended against the said newly added Defendants.”
“If any application/ UI/ website, which is not primarily infringing the Exclusive Rights, is blocked in pursuance of this Order, such entity is permitted to approach the Court by giving an undertaking that it does not intend to do any illegal dissemination of the content… and the Court would consider modifying the injunction.”
“Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.” It also ordered that “The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be done within two weeks.” Finally, the matter was listed as “List before this Court on 03.03.2026.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Siddharth Chopra, Mr. Yatinder Garg, Mr. Priyansh Kohli, Ms. Ishi Singh, Mr. Shudhata Sudhir and Mr. Manish Singh, Advocates.
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Cricfy TV & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1203/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
