What ANI’s Litigation Reveals About Indian Fair Dealing

Introduction : On 24 July 2026, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court refused Asian News International’s application for an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding on a prima facie view that the use of ANI’s copyrighted news content to train a large language model could fall within the fair dealing exception in Section 52(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Fourteen months earlier, the same judge had heard the same plaintiff complain about a YouTuber who had used news clips lasting a matter of seconds inside videos running half an hour or more. That copyright question was never decided. It was absorbed into a defamation dispute and left standing.

Read together, these proceedings expose something the familiar critique of Indian copyright law tends to miss. The difficulty with fair dealing in India is not principally that Section 52 is drafted as a closed list of permitted purposes. It is that the defence is unevenly available. It works for a litigant with the resources to reach a reasoned order, and it quietly fails those who are struck, settled or priced into silence long before a judge considers the doctrine at all.

A Plaintiff, Two Defendants & One Judge

In May 2025, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against the YouTuber Mohak Mangal and two other individuals, Mohammad Zubair, a journalist, and Kunal Kamra, a comedian, under CS(COMM) 573/2025. The immediate cause for the allegations was a video in which Mangal claimed that ANI had applied copyright strikes on his YouTube channel, and he had asked for a huge amount to lift the copyright strikes. The range of figures came at ₹45 lakh to ₹50 lakh. Justice Amit Bansal in his order dated 29-05-2025 ordered Mangal to remove those parts of the video, where the Court found the expression to be prima facie defamatory, such as “hafta wasooli” and “gunda raaj” and repost the video as a private video. A parallel suit filed by ANI at Patiala House was then transferred and consolidated before the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court by an order dated 25, July 2025.

The Court and judge that had previously blocked OpenAI in July 2026 did the same again last week. Last week, the same Court and judge that blocked OpenAI in July 2026 did it again. Among other reasons, Justice Bansal observed that the prima facie case of ANI on reproduction was weak, as the information it used from ChatGPT was based on dates earlier than the cut-off used for the training of the model. He did not see the use as undermining any market role for ANI’s licensing, noted that a commercial purpose does not necessarily run afoul of fair dealing, and believed that training use could be part of Section 52(1)(a)(i). The injunction was denied and the suit was allowed to go forward for trial.

But, by itself, neither of these findings is without merit, and it is worth stating unequivocally: the OpenAI order hinged on many of its findings being based on weak evidence, not on an unconditional blessing of text-and-data mining. Comparing the two proceedings, however, the two narratives tell of a doctrine that is acting strangely. A considered analysis under Section 52 was given to the defendant who consumed an entire archive, who survived it. A few seconds later, the commentator didn’t get to the section.

How the Copyright Question Disappeared

This is the part of Mangal which needs to be investigated more than has been done. His use was on its own the paradigm case for the exception of criticism or review in Section 52(1)(a)(ii). According to his senior counsel, the clips were approximately seven seconds in length and were used in videos of about thirty minutes; according to other reports of the clips and the lengths of the videos, the clips were a bit more than that. In all these figures, the use is “a small quantum”, for the “critical purpose” and without any “realistic competition” with the original. No one watches a half-hour critique of a news agency in lieu of paying for its wire service.

However, none of this is specified by the operative order from 29 May 2025. The copyright claim is registered but not heard. Defamation put an end to the brief spat. You want to use videos without having to license them: Okay, great, use excerpts from their videos.” But what’s the motivation you have for saying such bad things about them? Copying is commonplace. Restraint is pulled to what the speech has to say.

This is a sound litigation tactic on behalf of a rights holder, and it should be identified as such. Where the fair dealing defence looks like it’s going to hold up, it would be hardly valuable to force a decision on it. Accompany the rhetoric with claims for defamation and trademark disparagement and then let the creator’s words do the rest of the job in Mangal’s case, it’s the very words that got him in trouble in the first place. The critic cuts his film. The critic edits his video. The copyright issue may have created a precedent which will limit future strikes.

The Forum that Decides before the Court does

That is a modest estimate of the issue, since the determining events came before the pleading. The power was in YouTube’s copyright strike feature. If a creator gets 3 strikes within a 90-day period, their entire catalogue is terminated and removed from the channel; the creator can have their catalogue removed by retracting a strike. That architecture is a sellable product, and it has no need to reference Section 52. It is to be noted that it is not the same obligation as under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which mandates an intermediary to act within 36 hours of an order by the court or a notification by the government. The two layers are not the same, but they have this in common: remedy is given first, and the question of the fairness of the remedy is asked, if any, well after the fact.

That translated to the practice is what was said in open court. While appearing before ANI in its application to reinstate ten videos which it had earlier removed after strikes, Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal had said that it was ready to settle early with ANI and that the broadcaster has the option of paying the agency or editing the content in question. This was “not a commercial issue,” but one of free speech, said Senior Advocate Diya Kapur for Mangal. In any case, as with many things, the question offered pay or edit is not one that anyone thinks about when considering Section 52. It is the option that the strike system offers.

The same thread, minus the litigation, wrapped up the previous battle between Dabur India and Dhruv Rathee. The suit was disposed of on 18 June 2024 after the Calcutta High Court recorded a settlement, where the respondent accepted to blur/replace the packaging of Dabur’s product, a move that did not imply that he waived his rights to free speech and fair comment in the video. The fact that the reservation is there gives it away. The argument was saved and never tried, since settlement was the less expensive option. More commonly, most of these disputes resolve themselves this way and for that reason, Indian fair dealing law is rather sparse despite the number of disputes it gives rise to.

There’s a good balance and it’s worth noting. The Intellectual Property Division is now directly taking steps to reach the other layer, as in the case of Mangal’s reinstatement application, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice to both ANI and YouTube and expressed dissatisfaction with the initial response. This is a significant achievement. It is also reactive, of course it had to be started by a senior counsel who was the creator.

The Speech Cost, and a Recent Warning

In a doctrinal reading, a further dimension is lost. ANI’s suit didn’t end at the creator. It cited two people as having been connected to the case because of their public postings. Zubair took his post, but Kamra refused to do it. But, make no mistake, the message to those considering commenting on a live intellectual property battle is clear: An opinion, or at least a summons to the Delhi High Court, can cost you big.

The point is made even more forcefully by the timing of this. On 20 May 2025, the Supreme Court had quashed an order from the Delhi High Court that had ordered Wikimedia to remove Wikimedia’s page on ANI’s defamation case, after the same order was given 20 days ago in Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited. Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan concluded that the direction was not necessary, not proportional and restraint could only be justified in cases where there is a “real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice” and “courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms.” The warning was issued three weeks ago about disproportionate restraint on discussion of a pending dispute.

What might actually help

When the defect is before the courtroom, the remedies follow and are not showy. First, accountability for notice – if an individual or entity is to be able to issue a strike or takedown notice, that issuer should have to state, though briefly, why the use does not happen to be for one of the purposes listed in Section 52, putting some cost back on the present costless act. The second is a statutory repercussion for bad-faith or “monetized” enforcement: costs, so that the cancellation of a strike cannot be openly charged. The third is an expedited declaratory route to the Intellectual Property Division where a creator can get a ruling without having to be sued for defamation and into a defamation trial.

This is also why the most popular of the reform proposals (a “fair use” clause along American lines to replace the enumerated clause in Section 52) is targeting the wrong target. This is not a clause that would have helped Mangal, whose copyright defense wasn’t even heard. It wouldn’t have helped Rathee, who settled. It would have helped OpenAI, the company that was occupying the space under the old text, on the Delhi High Court’s reasoning. The expansion of the doctrine is relevant but not the determining factor.

Conclusion

ANI has litigated the entire spectrum of copyright and speech law in one litigation programme. Even though the Supreme Court introduced a proportionality test, it was defeated by the takedown it acquired from Wikimedia. It did not get an order prohibiting the most well-funded defendant it could have asked for, in a case where the Court seriously considered the issue of “fair dealing. Between and without any copyright ruling, it attained a lot of what it was looking for: an edited video, litigation on multiple fronts and a legal question left conveniently unresolved.

That should make any assumption that strength of a defense comes from drafting withers. Indian fair dealing extended a reasoned hearing to the system that swallowed an entire archive, and hasn’t even had a chance to hear the commentator who consumed a few seconds. Until Section 52 comes before these disputes in the future, to be settled at the price of a strike, it will stay largely as it has come to be used in practice – a protection afforded chiefly to those who can afford to be defended.

Author:- Sumana Krovvidi, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

References

1. The Copyright Act, 1957, ss. 14, 37, 52(1)(a)(i), 52(1)(a)(ii), 52(1)(a)(iii).
2. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohak Mangal & Ors., CS(COMM) 573/2025, Delhi High Court, order dated 29 May 2025 (Bansal, J.). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120998372/
3. Mohak Mangal v. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Delhi High Court, order dated 25 July 2025 (Arora, J.) (transfer and consolidation of CS(COMM) 447/2025 before the Intellectual Property Division). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50561307/
4. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC, Delhi High Court, order dated 24 July 2026 (Bansal, J.) (interim injunction refused; fair dealing under s. 52(1)(a)(i) arguable on a prima facie view). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93327052/
5. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors., 2025 INSC 656, Civil Appeal No. 5391 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 9 May 2025 (Oka and Bhuyan, JJ.).
6. Civic Chandran v. C. Ammini Amma, 1996 (16) PTC 670 (Ker); (1996) 1 KLT 608, Kerala High Court, decided 27 February 1996 (Ramakrishnan, J.).
7. Dabur India Ltd. v. Dhruv Rathee, Calcutta High Court, suit disposed of in terms of settlement on 18 June 2024 (Krishna Rao, J.).
8. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, r. 3(1)(d).
9. “Delhi High Court seeks YouTube, ANI responses to Mohak Mangal plea seeking reinstatement of his videos”, Bar and Bench; and corresponding report in LiveLaw (submissions of Kirpal and Kapur, S.A.).
10. “Delhi High Court Directs YouTuber To Remove Defamatory Video Portions Alleging Extortion By ANI”, Verdictum, 29 May 2025.
11. YouTube Help, “Understand copyright strikes” (three strikes within 90 days; channel termination; retraction and counter-notification).
12. Manya Jain, LexOrbis, “Navigating Intellectual Property and Free Speech: Insights from the Dabur vs. Dhruv Rathee Case”, Lexology, 24 July 2024.