Decided on: 30th January, 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 429, order dated 30-01-2026
Introduction
By granting ex parte interim relief and a dynamic blocking mechanism against rogue streaming platforms, the Delhi High Court has once again stepped in to protect cricket broadcasting rights in the case of JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Crichdbest.com & Ors.
For broadcasters and OTT platforms, the order is a clear judicial mandate that live sports piracy will attract rapid injunctions rather than slow, site-by-site skirmishes.
Broadcasting rights under Indian law
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the “broadcast reproduction right” vests in every broadcasting organisation in relation to its broadcasts for 25 years from the beginning of the year following the first broadcast. This right allows the broadcaster to restrain unauthorised re-broadcasting, public communication, or making of recordings of the broadcast. Pertinently, limited exceptions, such as private use, reporting of current events and certain educational uses, do not extend to commercial, public-facing streams of entire matches.
In the present case, JioStar India asserted exclusive broadcast and digital media rights for ICC cricket events, including the Under-19 Men’s Cricket World Cup and the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, acquired under licensing arrangements with ICC and related entities. The value of these rights is driven by subscription revenue, advertising and sponsorship, all of which depend on the exclusivity of live streaming.
Facts of the case
JioStar sued a cluster of rogue mobile applications and associated websites, including Crichdbest.com which were offering unauthorised live streams of ongoing ICC matches. The platforms either provided the feeds free of cost or for nominal subscription fees and repeatedly resurfaced through mirror and variant domains. JioStar placed before the Court evidence of live infringing streams, prior takedown efforts and the time-sensitive nature of sports broadcasts.
The reliefs sought went beyond a simple order against named domains. JioStar asked for:
- An ex parte ad-interim injunction against the identified apps/sites and their operators;
- Directions to domain name registrars, ISPs and government departments (DoT/MeitY) to block access to the notified online locations; and
- A dynamic mechanism to block future URLs / domains used by the same rogues for the same infringing activity.
Court’s reasoning and relief
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, finding a clear prima facie case of infringement of JioStar’s broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37, with balance of convenience and irreparable harm tilted in JioStar’s favour. The Court accepted that delay during an ongoing tournament would render any final decree meaningless, as the commercial value of live sports is heavily front-loaded.
Key directions included:
- Restraining the named rogue apps and associated websites from streaming, communicating or making available JioStar’s broadcasts of the ICC events;
- Directing domain registrars and ISPs to block access to the specified domains and apps;
- Permitting JioStar to periodically file affidavits identifying additional “flagranly infringing online locations” (“FIOLs”) connected with the same rogue ecosystem, for prompt blocking without fresh substantive hearings.
This mechanism aligns with earlier “Dynamic” and “Dynamic+” injunctions where the Delhi High Court allows rights-holders to extend blocking orders to mirrors, redirects and future domains used for the same infringing pattern.
Practical takeaways
From an advisory perspective, JioStar v. Crichdbest offers several concrete points:
- Contract and chain of title: Broadcasters must be ready with complete licence chains (from ICC/BCCI or other rights owners) and clear articulation of the specific rights (territorial scope, platforms, duration) they seek to enforce.
- Evidence of live infringement: Screenshots, screen-recordings with timestamps, and technical reports mapping domains, apps and IP addresses are critical to convince the Court to grant ex parte and dynamic relief.
- Prayer drafting: Relief should explicitly cover (a) existing domains/apps, (b) mirror and alphanumeric variant domains, (c) future URLs carrying the same infringing streams, and (d) directions to DoT/MeitY, ISPs and domain registrars to implement blocking.
- Section 37 vs underlying copyright: Where the client is a broadcaster but not the producer of the underlying cinematograph film, the pleadings must be careful to rely on Section 37 (broadcast reproduction right) and not overstate rights in the underlying work, unless there is a separate assignment/licence.
- Compliance and monitoring: After obtaining dynamic relief, the rights-holder has an ongoing burden to monitor for new infringing online locations and file timely affidavits / applications for them to be brought within the blocking net.
Conclusion
Rather than describing the ruling as a “powerful shield” or a “blueprint for all future cases”, it may be more accurate and legally conservative to say:
The order in JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Crichdbest.com & Ors. continues the Delhi High Court’s line of decisions granting dynamic and Dynamic+ injunctions against rogue streaming platforms. For broadcasters and OTT services holding valuable sports rights, it confirms that well-documented suits, backed by robust licensing chains and technical evidence, are likely to attract swift injunctive protection of Section 37 broadcast reproduction rights and related relief against intermediaries.