Locked Out of Learning: How the Shadow Library Ban Deepens India’s Knowledge Divide

See All Articles

5 Key Takeaways

• The Delhi High Court's 2025 ban on shadow libraries like Sci-Hub and LibGen restricts academic access, especially in countries with limited resources.
• The ban exacerbates the divide between well-resourced Western scholars and those in the Global South, who often lack up-to-date academic materials.
• Shadow libraries are crucial for independent researchers and students who cannot afford expensive paywalled resources, enabling equal opportunities for knowledge creation.
• The move is seen as prioritizing publishers' profits over the broader goal of knowledge dissemination and future research advancement.
• The case recalls Aaron Swartz's fight for open access, highlighting ongoing global inequalities in information access and questioning who benefits from restricting knowledge.

When Knowledge Becomes a Luxury: The Ban on Shadow Libraries and Its Impact on Students and Researchers
Imagine you’re a student or a researcher in India, eager to learn and contribute to your field. You need access to the latest books, articles, and research papers. But there’s a catch: most of this information is locked behind expensive paywalls, and your university library is outdated or incomplete. For years, websites like Sci-Hub and LibGen—known as “shadow libraries”—have been a lifeline, offering free access to academic materials that would otherwise be out of reach.
But on August 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court banned these shadow libraries across India, following complaints from big publishers about copyright violations. The official reason? To protect the rights of publishers and authors. But the real-world effect is that thousands of students and independent researchers now find themselves cut off from the resources they desperately need.
This isn’t just an Indian problem. Around the world, there’s a growing divide between researchers in wealthy countries—who often get free access to journals through their universities—and those in developing countries, who are left with crumbling libraries and outdated books. The ban on shadow libraries only makes this gap wider.
The debate over open access isn’t new. Publishers argue that they need to charge for access to fund their operations and pay authors. But critics say that the main goal of research should be to spread knowledge, not to make money. When information is locked away, it slows down progress and keeps valuable knowledge out of the hands of those who could use it to make a difference.
One of the most famous advocates for free access to information was Aaron Swartz, a computer programmer and activist. He believed that “information is power,” and that it shouldn’t be reserved for the privileged few. Swartz tried to make millions of academic articles freely available, but faced harsh legal consequences and ultimately took his own life. His story is a reminder of how high the stakes are in the fight for open access.
In countries like India, where research opportunities are already limited, banning shadow libraries feels especially unfair. It’s hard to expect world-class research from people who don’t have access to the latest knowledge. While governments sometimes try to create their own digital libraries, these are often incomplete and not very helpful.
At the end of the day, restricting access to knowledge doesn’t just hurt students and researchers—it holds back society as a whole. We should be asking: Who really benefits when information is kept behind closed doors? And is it right to let money decide who gets to learn and who doesn’t?

Read more