YouTuber Paurush Sharma faces channel termination; Accuses media house of misusing Copyright Strikes
In an emotional video uploaded to his backup YouTube channel, popular content creator Paurush Sharma who has over 1.5 million subscribers announced that his main channel is on the verge of being permanently shut down by YouTube. The creator, known for his satirical and news-based content, said he never imagined having to make such a video and called the experience heartbreaking.
Sharma revealed that the process began two days ago when he received an email from YouTube stating that his channel is being terminated due to multiple copyright strikes. The strikes, according to him, were not from random individuals but from a single media house that issued repeated claims against several of his videos. The creator explained that his content often used publicly available clips to expose misinformation or highlight truths, and that these clips were generally covered under fair use, especially in the context of news and satire.
He described the impact the notice had on him, saying it took two days to even process what was happening. “I have given seven years of my life to this channel,” he said, recounting how he worked round the clock—often sacrificing family moments, including his own child’s birthday—to create content. For him, the channel was not just a profession, but a passion, and a medium to counter misinformation and lies with facts.
He pointed out that YouTube’s content rules for fair use are often complex and misused. He explained that his use of news footage was meant to inform the public and not for personal gain. Despite this, the media house in question sent multiple copyright strikes within a very short span of time.
“Day before yesterday, I received two copyright strikes in the morning. I thought I had time to act, as channels are only taken down after the third strike. But by afternoon, four more strikes came in, taking the total to six. Then I received a notice from YouTube that the channel will be deleted in seven days,” he said.
Attempts were made to contact the media house to resolve the issue, but he claimed there was no response. Strikes continued to come in through the next day and night, worsening the situation. When he contacted YouTube support, he was informed that not only will the main channel be deleted, but any other existing or future channels created under his name will also face the same fate.
According to him, this effectively amounts to a complete ban from YouTube. “What crime have I committed?” he questioned, his voice filled with emotion. “Is speaking the truth a crime now?”
He further alleged that this entire episode appears to be a targeted effort to silence his voice, especially because his videos have often challenged powerful individuals and exposed uncomfortable truths. “When you question power, you have to pay the price,” he said.
He also shared that after reaching out to the media house again, they gave him a final offer: pay ₹24 lakh (approximately ₹21 lakh plus 18% GST) within five days, and they would consider withdrawing the copyright strikes. The amount, he said, is impossible for him to arrange at such short notice.
“This isn’t just about a YouTube channel,” he added. “My entire livelihood depends on this. My family, my team, and their families are all connected to this work. This is my only source of income.”
He urged his followers to subscribe to his backup channel and stay connected, in case his main channel is taken down. “I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to come back on YouTube. But I want to thank everyone who has supported me over the years,” he said, choking back tears.
The video ends with a plea to his audience for continued support and a warning about how fragile digital freedom can be, especially when powerful entities are involved.
He added, those willing to support him in raising the 24L rupees required to be paid to the company, shall do so by depositing any convenient amoung to his account with details: Account Details- Paurush sharma Account number - # 915010000834762 IFSC Code- UTIB0005599. Or in an alternate account- Vinay Sharma Account # - 711710110006394 IFSC code- BKID0007117
Note: The identity of the media house, and other legal details were not disclosed due to ongoing legal constraints.
The incident involving Paurush Sharma is not isolated. Independent digital voices in India have been under growing pressure in recent times. Just a few weeks ago, access to the YouTube channel 4PM News, run by senior journalist Sanjay Sharma, was restricted. This move reportedly came after a complaint raised national security concerns. The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting intervened, leading to the channel being taken down. Sanjay Sharma has stated he plans to take legal action and expressed concern over the narrowing space for independent journalism. YouTube, however, has not issued any public statement on the takedown.
Similarly, folk singer and popular YouTuber Neha Singh Rathore has also faced legal trouble for her content. A criminal complaint was filed against her in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya District, accusing her of sedition for allegedly linking BJP leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir. The complaint claimed that Rathore’s posts were meant to incite unrest and gain electoral advantage. It further alleged that her content was being used by anti-national elements abroad, including Pakistan’s PTI party, which shared her video. Rathore is already facing an FIR in Lucknow for similar charges. The complaint calls her a “habitual YouTuber” spreading unrest and accuses her of being connected to a larger network of political and mafia-backed groups.
The growing list of such cases has raised alarm among digital creators, journalists, and free speech advocates. Many see this as a worrying trend where online platforms, sometimes under pressure from authorities, are being used to curb dissent rather than protect free expression.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
