Abstract
Knowledge is now locked away behind costly subscriptions and paywalls. Fall of Shadow libraries like Sci-Hub and Sci-Net, after almost five years of a long court battle has ignited an intense debate in academic and legal communities. This raises ethical dilemma regarding the right to access knowledge and education. This article draw parallels with Colonial Downward Filtration Theory, demonstrating how modern digital paywalls’ continue to ration knowledge to privileged members of the society. But alternate resources like Open access are providing free flow of knowledge thus,
maintaining balance between copyright and right to access knowledge and education.
Keywords: Copyright Right Act, Modern Paywalls, Downward Filtration Theory and Intellectual Property Rights.
Introduction
The Delhi HC in the case of Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors.[1] protects publisher’s rights but it also widens the socio-economic disparity between haves and have-nots. For students and researchers lacking in financial means, resources or university access, these rogue websites were more than just free digital libraries; these libraries were essential links to global knowledge and information.
Even though this order is legally justified, authors and publishers copyrights were violated through unauthorized access to articles. But this recent development feels like a triumph of profit over access to knowledge[HT1] and even breaches the constitutional promises such as Right to Equality and Right to Education. This order serves as a depressing reminder of how tenuous access to knowledge can be, especially for those outside affluent establishments or regions.
Delhi High Court’s judgement on Sci-Hub and Sci-Net
In 2020, publishers Wiley, Elsevier, and the American Chemical Society made accusations that websites Sci-Hub and Sci-Net were infringing on their copyrights by providing unauthorised access to published articles. [2]The court reached to a conclusion that these ‘rogue websites’ is primarily engaged in copyright infringement under Section 51[3] of the Copyright Act, 1957, with the infringement being blatant and egregious. Under Section 51, copyright infringement is defined as performing acts reserved for the copyright owner without their permission or allowing a location to be used for the profit-making infringement of a work. Actions like selling, distributing, exhibiting, or importing infringing copies of a work are included.
The court supported this judgement by citing similar actions taken by foreign courts. Sci-Hub has already been blocked in 11 countries, like Russia[4] and other European countries like France, Austria and Sweden[5]. Consequently, on August 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court in the case of Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors.[6] issued an interim order, directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) to block access to ‘Sci-Hub’ and its mirror website and ‘Sci-Net[HT2] ’. These shadow libraries offered free access to books, journals and article without the authorisation and licence from publishing houses, directly violating rights of publishing houses under Copyright Right Act, 1957. Further, free access was causing irreparable financial damages and undermining of subscription-based models
These court orders, bans and domain seizures against shadow libraries are often seen as a ‘Protective Umbrella for Publishers and Authors’ defending their copyrights and intellectual property rights. But behind these so-called headlines lies a harsher reality: these crackdowns push researchers and students ‘up against the paywall’. With access to knowledge locked away, countless scholars are left unable to pursue projects, publish, or find alternate sources. What’s presented as copyright protection for publishers and writers feels, to many, like a deepening discrepancy.
This judgement stands in contrast to the landmark Delhi University Photocopy Case (The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service, 2016),[7] High Court of Delhi held that reproduction of copyrighted works for educational use will fall within the scope of fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court in this case engaged in providing affordable materials to students and provided different perspective in terms of balancing public interest and copyright law. The court gave preference to public interest over copyright of publishers.
Rights implicated by this order
Not all institutions can afford all costly research platforms for students and researchers. Thereupon, putting spotlight on right to equality and non-discrimination mentioned under Articles 14 [8]and 15 [9]of the Indian Constitution. This order goes beyond Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights enforcement, threatening fundamental rights violations like Article 19(1)(a)[10] (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21A (Right to education) of the Indian Constitution[11]. These articles guarantee the right to access essential knowledge.
Through this order, not only is the right to participate in scientific and cultural life threatened, but also academic freedom is curtailed. Thus, putting limitations on students and scholars ability to learn, research and innovate is affected.
On the international level, the ruling clashes with principles outlined in the Article 27(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[12] and Article 15(1)(b) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),[13] including access to education, free expression, participation in science, and protection from discrimination. By favouring giant corporate houses over equitable access to knowledge, the order risks deepening the gaps between domestic and international knowledge, leaving many researchers to find alternate means for research and academic purposes.
Historical parallels & continuities
There is nothing novel about the struggle over access to knowledge and information among the common masses. Under the colonial era, modern education and information (especially English Education) was carefully rationed to maintain hierarchy and control through ‘Downward Filtration Theory‘. This theory was designed by Lord Macaulay in his famous historic report, ‘Macaulay’s Minutes of 1835′. [14]According to this theory, they promised modern education to a small elite group that would eventually elevate the common masses. Knowledge will trickle down to the lower-class people in India, but in reality, it never did. Access to knowledge remained with a few privileged members of the society, while the others stayed excluded. It created modern stratification in the society. This theory was an utter failure in India; leaving a huge majority of people uneducated.
The current Copyright Act provides exclusive rights to publishers and authors, which reduces the availability of shadow libraries. These exclusive rights ensure power of big publishing houses over accessibility. This shows how legal control over production of knowledge, flow of knowledge and dissemination sustains enduring inequalities. According to publishers, they invest a lot of resources on the editorial process, curation, and market distribution. Through Paywalls’, publishing houses are trying to sustain ecosystem of publishing industry and encourage creativity by providing financial benefits to creators. But this provides disproportional privilege at expense of access to knowledge.
The shutdown of shadow libraries like Sci-Hub and LibGen feels like history is repeating itself. Once again, knowledge is not available for all strata of society. Paywalls and subscription fees restrict access to those with money or elite institutional ties. Just as colonial filtration failed to standardize education, today’s shadow libraries ban risks deepening inequality in the academic area. Closing shadow libraries revivifies the old Downward Filtration mentality, where opportunity is rationed and knowledge is nothing but an exclusive luxury, not a public right. Both systems tighten control from above, ensuring that knowledge ‘trickles down’ only in fragments and not in full to the common masses.
Alternatives & Solutions
‘When one door closes, another window opens.’
A new window of opportunity is opening in the form of open access. This opportunity flips switch for traditional publishing houses by providing access to all. Researchers can share their research freely rather than have it locked behind costly paywalls. Different initiatives like Gold OA, Creative Commons licences, Plan S, and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) are already thriving successfully as a public good, not as a private monopoly. Several authors like Yuanfei Wang encourage publishing their books without Paywalls’, publishing their books on open access websites. [15]In India, several government-backed websites like Shodhganga, National Digital Library of India (NDLI), Indian Academy of Sciences’ e-resources and Open Access Journals by CSIR & ICMR are proving to be successful.
Open access needs more than the goodwill of the publishers, it needs proper government policies. Governments can expand funding for publicly owned publishing platforms. Educational institutions can build and maintain institutional repositories accessible to all. Cooperative publishing models could substitute monopoly-profit-driven systems, ensuring equality instead of exclusivity in the society[HT3] . AmeliCA, [16]a 2018 Latin American cooperative intiative model provides equitable access to all. This platform offers scholars to share their research work to all.
Even Community-Driven Archives[HT4] like The South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA), [17]Densho for Japanese American history,[18] the Digital Transgender Archive, [19] the Indian Memory Project [20]and Institutional Repositories like DSpace @IIMK, [21]Vidyanidhi, [22] and OpenMed@NIC [23]are becoming digital commons. They help in widening the circle of who gets to learn and contribute.
Together, these alternative initiatives can create an optimistic future. This could ensure free flow of knowledge and access is driven by curiosity, innovation and collaboration, not by economic incentive.
Conclusion
In the end, the discontinuance of shadow libraries is more than a copyright and intellectual property rights protection; it’s an indication of the ongoing global struggle for universal education and the right to access knowledge. Giant publishing houses now dictate who can access research through costly paywalls and subscription fees. Yet equitable future is possible through alternatives means like Open Access, institutional repositories, and community-driven archives.
Whether it is a colonial regime or the 21st century, restricting knowledge might fuel inequality and strife innovation. Knowledge is a public good and it must be shared with all classes of society.
[1] Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors., CS(COMM) 572/2020 (Del. H.C. Aug. 19, 2025).
[2] Outlook India, Delhi High Court Orders Blocking of Sci-Hub, Sci-Net and Mirror Websites in Copyright Infringement Case, 23 Aug. 2025, https://www.outlookindia.com/national/delhi-high-court-orders-blocking-of-sci-hub-sci-net-and-mirror-websites-in-copyright-infringement-case (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957, § 51 (India).
[4] D.S. Chawla, Sci-Hub Blocked in Russia Following Ruling by Moscow Court, Chem. World, Dec. 3, 2018, https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/sci-hub-blocked-in-russia-following-ruling-by-moscow-court/3009838.article (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).
[5]The Hindu Frontline, Sci-Hub, LibGen Ban: Delhi High Court Order and Implications for Indian Academia and Open Access Research (2025), https://frontline.thehindu.com/society/scihub-libgen-ban-delhi-high-court-indian-academia-open-access-research/article70011319.ece (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).
[6] Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors., CS(COMM) 572/2020 (Del. H.C. Aug. 19, 2025).
[7] The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the Univ. of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Servs. & Anr., CS(OS) No. 2439/2012 (Del. High Ct. Sept. 16, 2016).
[8] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[9] INDIA CONST. art. 15.
[10] INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a)
[11] INDIA CONST. art. 21A.
[12] Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 27(1), G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).
[13] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 15(1)(b), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[14] Hathib KK, Downward Filtration Theory (Sept. 28, 2018), https://teachersapp.wordpress.com/2018/09/28/downward-filtration-theory/ (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).
[15] Breaking Down the Paywall: Author Relationships with Open Access (Oct. 3, 2021), https://ebc.press.umich.edu/stories/2021-10-03-breaking-down-the-paywall/ (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).
[16] SPARC, Our Work – Innovator: Amelica, SPARC Open, https://sparcopen.org/our-work/innovator/amelica/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[17] SAADA (South Asian American Digital Archive) SAADA, South Asian American Digital Archive, https://www.saada.org (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[18]Densho: Japanese American Incarceration and Japanese Internment, Densho Digital Repository, https://densho.org (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[19]Digital Transgender Archive, Digital Transgender Archive, https://www.digitaltransgenderarchive.net (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[20] Indian Memory Project, Indian Memory Project, https://www.indianmemoryproject.com (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[21] DSpace at Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, DSpace, http://dspace.iimk.ac.in/xmlui/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[22] Registry of Open Access Repositories, ROAR eprints, https://roar.eprints.org/969/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
[23]Registry of Open Access Repositories, ROAR eprints, https://roar.eprints.org/3339/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).
Authored by: Ms. Apeksha Rawat, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
Ms. Apeksha Rawat is Currently, pursuing LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She completed her B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) with Honours in Intellectual Property Rights and has a strong academic interest in Copyright Law and Trademark Law.
Leave a Reply