On May 29, the Delhi High Court heard ANI’s defamation case against YouTuber Mohak Mangal over an allegedly defamatory video. During the hearing, the Court also addressed tweets posted by comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair related to the video.
NEW DELHI: On Thursday, May 29, the Delhi High Court continued hearing the defamation suit filed by news agency ANI against YouTuber Mohak Mangal, who is accused of publishing a disparaging and defamatory video about ANI.
During the hearing, the Court also took up related social media posts by comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, who had both tweeted in connection with Mangal’s video.
The High Court orally directed Kamra to take down his first tweet, which used strong language against ANI, and also recorded Zubair’s willingness to delete his post voluntarily.
Court’s Observation on Zubair’s Tweet
During the hearing, Justice Amit Bansal took note of the tweet posted by AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair in relation to the allegedly defamatory video by Mohak Mangal.
Justice Bansal remarked:
“For now, I am going to order take down of the first tweet.”
Appearing on behalf of Zubair, Advocate Soutik Banerjee submitted:
“I have only made one tweet. I am not a YouTuber. I am not making money out of this. This is the most civilised. I am willing to delete it.”
Acknowledging this willingness to resolve the matter, the Court recorded:
“Tweet shall be taken down within 24 hours. In view of the above, the plaintiff does not press relief against Defendant No. 3 Mohd. Zubair. Defendant No. 3 be deleted from the array of parties.”
Court’s Reaction to Kunal Kamra’s Tweet
The Court also examined tweets posted by comedian Kunal Kamra, which had referred to ANI in strong terms. When Kamra’s counsel argued that his client was a satirist and had nothing to do with the core defamation issue, Justice Bansal responded:
“Satire is good. It is welcome. But the phrases you have used — ‘mafia’, ‘thugs’ — I don’t see any satire or humour there.”
The Court asked Kamra’s lawyer to take instructions regarding the deletion of the first tweet. In response, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for ANI, clarified:
“The tweet is addressed to Smita Prakash.”
To this, Justice Bansal firmly stated:
“This tweet is hugely unacceptable.”
Kamra’s counsel defended the tweet as a fair comment, stating:
“It is fair comment, my lord. These are matters of public interest.”
Justice Bansal questioned:
“Can you abuse someone in the name of public interest? You are saying ‘these’ — who does ‘these’ refer to? Are you willing to take it down?”
Kamra’s counsel replied:
“No, my lord. I don’t have instructions to do the same.”
Reiterating his concern over the language used, Justice Bansal said:
“I am all for free speech, but calling someone ‘thugs’ and ‘mafia’ — it is serious. You have a huge following.”
Kamra’s lawyer insisted:
“This is fair comment, my lord.”
Justice Bansal concluded:
“You’ve to take down the first tweet. I can’t allow this. I can live with the second tweet.”
When ANI’s counsel submitted that the tweet insinuated extortion by ANI, Justice Bansal noted:
“Once the first tweet goes, the reference to ANI goes.”
Kamra’s lawyer, however, argued that the tweets were linked as part of a thread:
“No, my lord. The tweets are linked — if the first goes, the second also goes.”
Justice Bansal humorously responded:
“I don’t know. I have never used X.”
Before the lunch break, The Delhi High Court continued hearing news agency ANI’s defamation lawsuit against YouTuber Mohak Mangal, who is accused of making disparaging and defamatory statements in a recent video.
ALSO READ: Traitor Remark Case | Kunal Kamra Fails To Appear Mumbai Police Summons for Third Time
During the proceedings, the Court took note of the language and content used in the video and observed that some portions were “offending” and amounted to disparagement.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing ANI, argued that Mangal was not only using ANI’s copyrighted videos without permission but was also earning money by posting defamatory content.
“He has 4.2M subscribers, he is using my content to earn money, they attract eyeballs. He puts my registered trademark. I have placed transcription of a fake conversation with me, he states in minute letters that it is a recreation,” Sibal said.
He also pointed to posts made by comedians and fact-checkers Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, claiming they were part of a larger plan to harm ANI’s reputation.
“This is triggering all this. This is their modus operandi to put pressure on me,” he added.
Sibal further told the Court that there were active campaigns online targeting ANI:
“Live posts on YouTube calling for boycotting ANI, expletives are being used against me.”
In response, Senior Advocate Chander Lall, representing Mohak Mangal along with Advocate Nakul Gandhi, argued that ANI was not following proper legal procedures in handling copyright complaints. He claimed that Mangal was being pressured financially.
“If they have a grievance against me, they can’t call me and extort money from me that I will block your channel if you don’t pay,” Lall submitted.
However, Justice Amit Bansal questioned Mangal’s justification for the remarks made in the video.
“You want to use videos without taking license. You use, why would you come out with these kind of statements? How do you justify that?” Justice Bansal asked.
Lall responded that the onus was on ANI to first prove copyright infringement. But the Court directed him to focus on the defamatory and disparaging nature of the content.
“The videos on the face of it are disparagement,” Justice Bansal remarked, adding that Mangal should have made the video in a more “civilised manner”.
After watching the video, Justice Bansal instructed Lall to seek instructions on whether the defamatory portions could be taken down.
Lall, in his defense, maintained:
“They have no right to license and they are extorting Rs.40 lakh from me. I must have a remedy which is going to press.”
According to the video published by Mangal on May 25, he accused ANI of extortion and blackmail, claiming ANI issued copyright strikes on his YouTube videos for using small clips from their content. He alleged that an ANI representative demanded over Rs.40 lakh to withdraw those strikes.
ANI, however, said that the video was a deliberate attempt to insult and harm the agency’s reputation and registered trademarks. ANI’s petition claims that Mangal had admitted to using their original copyrighted videos to earn revenue, and despite this, went ahead and published a defamatory video.
ANI further said the video aimed to discourage others from using ANI’s services, and it included falsehoods, misused trademarks, and defamatory remarks.
The agency also raised concerns over others like Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, who had shared Mangal’s video on their platforms. According to ANI’s petition:
“In addition to widely sharing the Impugned Video, these Defendants have independently published further false, baseless, and malicious statements targeting the Plaintiff and its founders. These statements are devoid of any factual or legal foundation and are clearly intended to malign the Plaintiff’s reputation and lower its estimation in the eyes of the public.”
ANI’s lawyer, from Unum Law, started the argument by explaining the context of the dispute.
He said, “The background is that I have copyright in content generated by me, which is available on the internet.”
Justice Amit Bansal asked, “You generate your own video?” To which ANI’s counsel responded, “Yes mylord. We generate and syndicate our content. They have at 6 occasions infringed my content.”
The ANI lawyer added that “YouTube offers concept of 3 strikes after which channel would be deleted.” Instead of removing content after receiving copyright complaints, ANI alleged that the respondents were resorting to public defamation.
The lawyer said, “Instead of removing our content given copyright infringement they are making defamatory remarks inspite using our copyright content.”
Further, ANI’s lawyer claimed that the accused were profiting from ANI’s content while tarnishing its image.
“He is earning money out these mylord. he is not a common citizen.”
The lawyer added, “This man is calling inspite using our trademark calling for blocking and unsubscribing our channel.”
Expressing the fallout of these online attacks, the ANI lawyer told the court, “I am getting hate mail mylord because of all of this…” and added, “mylord 3rd parties are boycotting and calling for boycott because defendant 1 Youtuber Mohak Mangal made a call for this.”
He further disclosed the financial background of the dispute:
“First I offered him 45 lakh for subscription of our content services and then agreed to 24 lakh then he comes and make these defamatory remarks.”
Justice Bansal inquired, “Is mohak mangal still active.”
ANI’s lawyer replied, “Yes mylord as only 2 strikes are there with 3 his channel will be deleted within 10 days.”
He continued, “Discussing process of YouTube strike and counter strike…”
He added that while copyright complaints were being processed, the creator launched a media campaign calling ANI names like “thugs” and “gunda”, and misusing their trademark to demand blocking of the ANI channel.
“He is calling me thugs and gunda… also they are using my trademark calling me to block it. I have 8.3 mn subscribers.”
ANI is seeking Rs. 2.10 crore in damages, along with the following legal reliefs:
- A permanent and mandatory injunction against Mangal to remove the video, stop using ANI’s trademark, and refrain from publishing or sharing any false or defamatory content.
- Similar restraining orders against Kamra, Zubair, and others to prevent them from sharing or making defamatory statements about ANI.
Senior Advocate Chander Lall appeared for Mangal, along with Advocates Nakul Gandhi, Mujeeb, and Tanish Gupta.
Case Details: ANI MEDIA PVT LTD v/s MOHAK MANGAL & ORS.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
