Hearing ANI’s defamation suit against YouTuber Mohak Mangal, the Delhi High Court on Thursday orally suggested that certain words used by the YouTuber in his video were “offending”, LiveLaw reported.
Justice Amit Bansal reportedly asked Mangal's counsel to take down portions with words such as “hafta wasooli” and “gunda raj”.
In a video on May 25, Mangal had accused the news agency of extortion and blackmail after it initiated YouTube copyright strikes against him for using short clips in his videos.
Mangal claimed that an ANI representative had reached out to him and asked him to pay over Rs 40 lakh to clear the copyright strikes. However, ANI claims Mangal had openly admitted to using the ANI’s original copyrighted videos to earn revenue, according to Bar and Bench. Despite this, he published a video filled with defamatory and damaging statements, it said, adding that the video is an attempt to discredit the news agency.
The suit also reportedly mentions stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNewsco-founder Mohammed Zubair as defendants for sharing the video on their X handles.
While watching the video the court orally asked, as to where was the statement 'Penalty hoti hain 5 Lakh ki' coming from asking if this was Mangal's version.
After watching the video the court orally said, “Mr Lall take instructions. This is not...Hafta wasooli, gunda raaj. I am giving reasonable suggestion to you. Everytime I found something offending I looked at you. You will take down this...Do it today. Whoever is using this kind of language, please take instructions. There are so many cases filed here against youtube and others…”
To this Lall said, “I'll give a red line version whatever portion I'll take down...I'll give a red line version. But hear me for 10 mins after that. I'll show what they are doing is telling”
The matter will be taken up after lunch.
ANI’s accusation against Mangal of copyright violation
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing ANI, alleged that Mohak Mangal had violated the news agency’s copyright. “They are violating my copyright content. I say take license. They took clips from my videos, those were interviews. They use them in their own posts. Done on six occasions. There is unlawful publication of my content,” Sibal submitted, with Advocate Siddhant Kumar also appearing for ANI.
Sibal referred to YouTube’s policy on copyright strikes, explaining, “The conditions are if there is no response... Three strikes and your channel is suspended. I approach them and say you're infringing my content. I offered a license. They could have rejected my offer. Instead of that, to put pressure on me, the defamatory material is circulated against me.”
Highlighting Mangal’s influence on YouTube, Sibal said, “My friend has 4 million subscribers. He posts this on his site. He has five million plus vidoes. He is no ordinary person. And he is earning money on defamation of the plaintiff. He puts my registered trademark ANI and he says unsubscribe. Is a person entitled to pin point a plaintiff and do this in any situation?”
Referring to the content of Mangal’s videos, Sibal stated, “He presents as if there is actual conversation (in the video). Absolutely false.” On the use of language, he added, “Vasooli is translated as extortion in English.... Anyone who makes offer of monetary payment, this can be said about them?”
Allegations of a coordinated campaign against ANI
Sibal also alleged a coordinated effort involving other defendants. Referring to Kunal Kamra, Mohammed Zubair, and an individual named John, he said, “This seems to be a concerted effort with Defendant no. 1 (Mangal).” Sibal further pointed to posts by Kamra and Zubair, arguing that the plaintiff was receiving “hate mail.” He said, “Just look at the picture with my trademark.”
When the court inquired whether that particular post was from a third party, Sibal confirmed, “Yes. Which is why I am asking for John doe. This is to put pressure on me....”
The court asked whether ANI had filed a suit for copyright infringement. Sibal clarified that while the current suit was for defamation, a separate case for copyright infringement would be filed.
Sibal also emphasized ANI’s consistent licensing practices with other social media users, stating, “Similar agreements I am entering into with third parties. Kindly see the remuneration. With social media platform user taking a license from me when I approach them with infringement.”
ANI accuses Mangal of running defamatory media campaign
Sibal described Mangal’s actions as a larger defamation campaign. He said, “They are calling me gunda, kidnapper. They are using my trademark saying block and unsubscribe. I have 8.3 million subscribers. Defendant no 1 has 4.21 million subscribers. He has 5 million views himself. That's the kind of damage done to me. It must have increased now. He makes money out of these posts. Kindly see the advertisements on his channel.”
He reiterated that ANI’s registered trademark was being misused and sought the removal of such posts and a ban on future uploads that infringe on ANI’s trademark. Sibal also sought a John Doe order in relation to unnamed individuals posting similar defamatory content. “This is all spiralling,” he noted, pointing to specific URLs.
Dispute over licensing demand
Appearing for Mangal, Senior Advocate Chander Lall countered the allegations, stating, “What does my channel say? That there is extortion by someone. They have no license. I am not infringing. They say you pay me 40 lakh per year for license. Then they say two years. Under YouTube the third strike, I channel it. I write to YouTube. If my channel gets blocked then I am stuck. I have to pay then. I don't need to move court. I write to YouTube.”
When the court asked whether Mangal had written to ANI and refused the license, Lall affirmed. The court asked, “Then use but why you come out with these statements? How do you justify?”
Lall maintained that even if there was a legal process for copyright claims, ANI could not “extort money from” Mangal by stating that “if you don't pay the channel will be blocked.”
To this, the court responded, “YouTube is allowing strikes no? Let's cut this short... You make out your case.” Lall then argued that ANI did not have the right to demand a license.
Debate Over ‘extortion’ allegation
The court questioned whether ANI’s demand could be termed as extortion, asking, “Let's say their demand is wrong, you'll call it extortion?” Lall replied that the phrase ‘your channel will be blocked’ was indeed characterised as extortion.
Lall added, “He writes to YouTube.... Till date they (ANI) have not taken injunction against me for copyright.” The court then inquired whether Mangal had monetised the videos, to which Lall responded that it was news reporting and ANI would have to prove infringement.
However, the court orally remarked, “You confine yourself to defamation.” Lall also argued that a trademark infringement suit was not applicable in this case, but the court observed that the concern at this stage was "disparagement" and noted that the videos appeared to be disparaging.
Lall asked the court to consider the context and overall content of the video.
Background of the suit
The defamation suit pertains to Mangal’s YouTube video titled “Dear ANI”, which currently has 5.5 million views. ANI’s suit also names comedian Kunal Kamra, AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, and John Does as defendants for sharing the video on their X (formerly Twitter) handles.
According to the suit, Mangal accuses ANI of “holding people hostage and committing extortion and blackmail” in enforcing its copyright. It also alleges that Mangal urged viewers to unsubscribe from ANI’s services.
ANI claims Mangal misrepresented communications with them, possibly using AI tools, to target and defame the agency and its staff. The suit calls the video a “calculated and malicious attack” on ANI’s reputation, credibility, goodwill, and its registered trademarks.
In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
