Blanket Injunctions in the Digital Age: The Jurisprudence and Proportionality of 'Ashok Kumar' Orders in India

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

The emergence of blanket and dynamic injunctions in India must be understood against the enforcement crisis created by digital infringement. Traditional injunction law rests on specificity, on notice and on the capacity to bind an identified party, and those requirements are difficult to satisfy where infringers cannot be found when a suit is filed. Indian courts responded with injunctions against unknown defendants, known here as Ashok Kumar orders, and later extended them into website blocking and dynamic injunctions reaching mirror and redirect sites not yet in existence when the order was made. This article traces that development from Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal to UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, and examines its constitutional implications. It argues that the difficulty lies not in the idea of an injunction against an unknown defendant but in the unstructured manner in which blanket and dynamic injunctions are granted. Measured against the four-part proportionality standard, such orders satisfy the requirements of legitimate aim and suitability but frequently fail those of necessity and balancing, because whole sites are blocked where individual addresses would serve, because affected parties are not heard, and because continuing blocking operates without periodic judicial review. Drawing on the practice of the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and Singapore, the article proposes a structured framework: a mandatory proportionality inquiry, a distinction between rogue and mixed-content sites, procedural safeguards for intermediaries and third parties, periodic review, transparency, and a remedy for wrongful blocking.