of Singapore, 1965, would only mean a Court based in Singapore, a Court in India would not be empowered to direct disclosure of the information relating to the subscriber who may be running the allegedly infringing channels. (vi) Finally, Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter “IT Act”), is stressed upon, which provides that any disclosure of information in breach of a lawful contract i.e., the contract between the Telegram platform and the subscriber/ creator of the impugned channels, would also be contrary to law and could constitute an offence. 12. In rejoinder, Ms. Rajeshwari, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, submits that: (i) Reliance on Singapore law would not be appropriate in the present circumstances inasmuch as this Court or any Court of competent jurisdiction would be empowered to pass directions in respect of a mobile platform which is operating in India. (ii) The laws of Singapore may apply in the context of a request being made by any private party to Telegram, to disclose information. However, this would not apply in the case of a Court order being passed. Findings and Analysis 13. The short but vexed legal issue that is to be decided in I.A.8461/2020 is whether Telegram can be directed to disclose the identity of the creators of the infringing channels which unauthorisedly and illegally disseminate the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 8 of 51