Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 29) directed YouTuber Mohak Mangal to take down specific portions of his video on ANI, while hearing the news agency's defamation suit alleging that his recent video is disparaging and defamatory towards the agency.

Prior to lunch hour, the high court had after watching the video, asked Mangal's counsel senior advocate Chander Lall to take instructions on removing certain offending portions from the video.

Post lunch, after hearing the parties, Justice Amit Bansal while dictating the order said:

The court also noted Lall's contention that after objected content is removed, the video may be reposted back on public forum.

Thereafter Lall showed the "red line portion" to the court.

He said, "page 3 "hafta vasooli" deleted. Then next para "ghatiya tareeka" I am cutting out. Then next page "vasool karke" I am deleting. Then next "kidnap karlete hain hostage banake" deleted. Then next page "tu hai kaun bhai" whole part deleted.Then "hafta vasooli" deleted. "Bihar me gunda raj" deleted. That's all".

Meanwhile senior advocate Amit Sibal appearing for ANI said, "Please see page 3. Third last para. He is calling up kidnappers, I won't negotiate with them. What does it mean? That ANI is kidnapper?".

To this Lall said he will delete the line where Mangal says "mai ANI ke sath negotiation karne nahi aaya."

At this stage Sibal requested deletion of line where Mangal says that people should unsubscribe ANI. To this court said:

Sibal said at this stage that the phrase "who are you to threaten me" should be removed. This was opposed by Lall who questioned as to how it was defamatory.

Sibal thereafter said the phrase on "the whole Bihar business" should also go to which the court said:

Post lunch, senior advocate Amit Sibal appearing for ANI submitted that this way anyone who asks for a license, they will be called am extortionist.

At this stage counsel appearing for YouTube submitted, "If the person like defendant here feels aggrieved, there is a process of filing counter notification. It is then sent to claimant and 10 days time is given to claimant to go to court and get an order because YouTube cannot decide if you are right or wrong".

The court at this stage addressed Mangal's counsel and said, "If they have not taken counter strike, your channels were not under threat. It is their right to file strike and your right to file defence. Your video... There was no ocassion fo you to come out of all of this. The video seem to be uploaded in the context that there were strikes".

Meanwhile advocate Nakul Gandhi appearing for Mangal said that after three strikes the defendant no. 1's channel would be done; and pursuant to this he cannot open a new channel. Then I can't open a new channel.

Gandhi however said, "There is an email from YouTube. If I can read one para from that....". Gandhi then read the email saying that the channel may be terminated if there were more strikes.

At this stage Sibal said that it is three "uncontested strikes" that leads to deletion of a YouTube channel.

Gandhi thereafter passed a chart on YouTube's structure of copyright strikes.

However the court said, "There was no threat to you channel no till they moved the court?... YouTube's stand is that if it is uncontested, then it will happen. But you have contested it?".

Gandhi said that he had been told that those were still in queue. On the court's query Gandhi explained, "means they have requested it but they have not reached me yet".

To this the court said, "So there is no threat. You need to tell your client that he is being hyperactive and calling all this".

Gandhi said that his client can remove the portions in question but he cannot be put to task for entire video.

When the court said that Mangal can take down the video in question and post a new video, Gandhi said, "No mylords. I can edit the portion and let the video remain. It is possible I am giving the statement...We can disable the comments also".

The court at this stage remarked, "But why this resistance of putting new video? Put it today". At this stage Sibal said that it was so because the defendant was monetizing it.

Sibal meanwhile said, "abusive comments are on my channel. It's not defendant's channel. "Shame on ANI" (he reads one of the comments).This is coming on same day after his (Mangal) publication. We don't have detail of this person. We can't array him so we are seeking john doe".

Sibal said that the continued availability of defamatory material prejudices ANI.

The court meanwhile said that, "Defendant no 3 (Zubair) is out of the way. Defendant 1 (Mangal) says he will remove defamatory content of the video. Defendant no 2 (Kamra) is resisting, we will order take down of first tweet".

Gandhi said, "if your lordships tell me right now what has to be deleted, I'll do it".

The court however said, "You sit together with him, if it is unresolved, I'll see". As Gandhi requested for the matter to kept tomorrow, Sibal objected to the request.

At this stage court said Gandhi, "I think the best is you rework this video".

The court then asked Gandhi to play the "audio recording" they had claimed to have. "Play it. Let's see it. Let the defense of truth come," the court said.

"I have indicated you should sit together. If unresolved, I am willing to step. I'll hear the transcript, whatever your person has said, there will be no takedown of that," the court added.

Gandhi at this stage said that whatever falls from the court will be deleted but not the entire video.

At this stage Senior Advocate Chander Lall appeared for Mangal and submitted, "I have taken instructions. A to M of the plaint, all statements by Mangal himself. These are not quotations of the alleged conversation. None of these from conversations. If I have an opinion... It is in the context of opinion. If I have a context, they have no right to license".

The court however said that this submission which has to be tested in court of law.

"We have seen the Google policy, there was no threat to your channel because you had filed counter notification. After that onus on them to move court. There was no threat to your channel to make this video," it said.

Lall thereafter said that Mangal can move the video to a "private channel, remove the offending portions and then upload"."I'll make the amendment. So that I retain my views. I don't want to lose my views. I will give them a red line version.We are willing to remove certain portions which we will share with them today," he added.

Earlier in the day ANI, represented by senior advocate Amit Sibal and Siddhant Kumar, had argued that Mangal was violating ANI's copyright content. It was argued that Mangal had taken clips from ANI's videos and used them in their own posts which amounts to unlawful publication of ANI's content. ANI had also argued that the impugned video referred to the agency as "gunda, kidnapper".

Meanwhile Lall had argued the legal way to go about the matter was copyright infringement, however ANI cannot call Mangal and "extort money from" him saying that "if you don't pay the channel will be blocked".

The suit has been filed against Mangal's YouTube video titled “Dear ANI” which has 5.5 million views at present. The suit also names comedian Kunal Kamra, AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair and unknown entities (john does) as defendants for sharing Mangal's video on their X Corp (formerly Twitter) handles.

As per the suit, Mangal in his YouTube video has alleged that ANI, in seeking to enforce its copyright over its published content, is holding people hostage and committing extortion and blackmail.

It further states that Mangal has called upon all members of public to unsubscribe to all the services offered by ANI. ANI has claimed that in his video, Mangal has deliberately misrepresented communications with ANI, including by using artificial intelligence tools, with the intent to target and malign the news agency and its employees.

The suit submits that the Impugned Video reflects a “calculated and malicious attack” on the reputation, credibility, and goodwill of ANI and also its registered trademarks.

The matter is now posted in July.