On 19^th August, 2025, the Delhi High Court passed an order in Elsevier v Alexandra Elbakyan (‘Elsevier case’) granting a dynamic injunction to block access to Sci Hub, Sci Net, and its mirror websites. The blog reflects on the serious challenges the order poses for access to academic works in India through a rights-centric approach to copyright law.

In the Elsevier case, the plaintiffs had asked for an injunction to block access to the defendant’s website, which was allegedly providing infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ works since 2011. In 2020, the court had refused it, noting the longstanding nature of infringement and the defendant’s undertaking that works published after 2020 will not be provided via the website. The plaintiffs approached the court once again, arguing non-compliance by the defendant. The court issued a dynamic injunction, saying that four of the conditions stipulated in the UTV case have been satisfied: the website’s primary purpose was copyright infringement, the infringement was flagrant, copyright was disregarded, and foreign courts had disabled access.

While the object of copyright protection is to incentivise research, it should not become a smokescreen for sustaining a skewed research ecosystem. As repositories, shadow libraries facilitate access to journal articles or books that otherwise remain out of bounds for most Indian researchers pursuing higher education in fund-strapped institutions unable to afford subscription costs. Moreover, the quality of classroom instruction has been contingent upon the procurement of student materials from shadow libraries. Thus, these platforms are a part of a covert apparatus providing an equitable avenue to pursue research.

In Rameshwari Photocopy case, the same court had recognised the right to access copyrighted works in the course of education. Both the single judge and the division bench had allowed for creation of course packs by reproducing the texts from copyrighted works, thereby facilitating access to students in no position to buy the textbooks. In the present case, the court has gone in a different path which disregards the right to access.

Unfortunately, the verdict pushes educational materials back behind insurmountable paywalls built by a handful of publishers based in the Global North with a virtual oligopoly. The brunt of the decision will unfortunately be borne by well-meaning early-career Indian researchers from disempowered communities. Considering that only a handful of libraries in elite Indian universities have access to publishers’ databases, despite initiatives like a lacklustre ‘One Nation One Subscription,’ many students will also be deprived if faculty members cannot fall back upon shadow libraries for disseminating reading materials.

A notable contrast can be seen in a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which recognised fair dealing as a user’s right. In fact, the question of ‘fair dealing’ is directly aligned with the human right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, as enshrined in Article 15 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which India is a party to. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘Committee’) in General Comment No. 25 exhorted states to remove ‘discriminatory barriers’ that obstruct marginalized groups from receiving scientific education [17]. Significantly, it was observed that an increase in privatization of research also creates onerous restraints upon the right to participate in scientific progress.

The escalating costs of scientific publications were also said to be a hindrance for ‘low-income researchers, especially in developing countries’ (General Comment No. 25, [61]). States were thus reminded of their obligation to address the social dimensions of intellectual property, in accordance with international human rights standards. As recorded in General Comment No. 13 of the Committee, ‘economic accessibility’ is one of the key limbs to the pursuit of higher education. State parties are expected to progressively implement ‘free’ higher education.

The court’s intervention in the Elsevier case fails to acknowledge the implications of foreclosing the fair dealing exception on human rights. In its zeal to prevent infringement, the order takes a divergent view from the Rameshwari Photocopy decision that had rightly provided an impetus for equitable access. As an immediate consequence, the shutdown of shadow libraries will have a detrimental impact on researchers and students alike, diluting rights-based obligations in the process.