All For Free Speech; But 'Thugs' and 'Mafia' Not Acceptable: Delhi HC In ANI v Mohak Mangal Case
In the ongoing suit between ANI and Mohak Mangal, the Delhi High Court observed that while free speech, including criticism, is protected but derogatory terms such as 'Thugs' and 'Mafia' used in reference to ANI were unacceptable and inappropriate.
Reaffirming its stance, the bench of Justice Amit Bansal further directed comedian Kunal Kamra to remove the derogatory terms from his tweet dated May 25, 2025. Kamra had made a post questioning YouTube's decision to allow ANI to operate like a 'mafia' on its platform. In this post, he asserted that content creators are the backbone of YouTube while referring to ANI as 'thugs'.
The dispute arose after ANI filed a defamation suit against Mohak, alleging that the influencer published false and damaging statements in response to copyright strikes issued by the media outlet. Senior Advocate Amit Sibal appeared on behalf of ANI, while Senior Advocate Chander Lall represented Mohak. The court also heard submissions from defendants Kunal Kamra and Mohd Zubair. Zubair's advocate expressed willingness to remove his tweet from Platform X and requested deletion from the list of summoned parties—a request the court accepted.
During the hearing, Kamra's counsel argued that Platform X was not a journalistic platform and that his posts, though possibly unpalatable, fell within the ambit of free speech.
The bench, however, observed that the language used was unacceptable, despite supporting the principle of free speech. Justice Bansal remarked, “I do not see this as humor,” and inquired whether Kamra would voluntarily remove the content. Kamra’s counsel replied that no such instructions had been received.
Senior Advocate Sibal asserted that Kamra had directly referred to ANI, using terms like "Hafta Vasuli" and "thugs", and had linked Mohak’s video in his posts. The court questioned whether deleting one tweet would result in the deletion of a tweet chain, to which Senior Advocate Sibal clarified that it would not.
Google's counsel explained YouTube’s takedown mechanism, stating that creators had the right to file a counter-notification, which then gave the complainant time to approach the court. The court acknowledged this system and noted that Mohak’s video exaggerated the threat to his YouTube channel. It found that no immediate threat of deletion existed, as Mohak had the opportunity to counter the strikes.
When pressed, Mohak’s counsel admitted that the copyright strikes had not yet affected the channel directly and were still in the queue. Justice Bansal stated that the video was premature and disparaging and emphasized that the fear presented in it was not justified. The bench remarked, "Your client is getting hyperactive".
The court asked Mohak to consider removing the video and re-uploading a revised version. Senior Advocate Sibal pointed out that the video was being monetized due to the controversy. In response, Justice Bansal asked whether the damage caused by the video could be undone. Sibal noted that abusive comments had flooded ANI’s platform as a result.
Senior Advocate Lall, appearing for Mohak, indicated a willingness to edit the video and agreed to remove defamatory content, but argued against curtailing general commentary on ANI’s policies. Justice Bansal instructed both parties to cooperate and identify specific parts for removal. He also permitted the presentation of an audio recording allegedly involving ANI employees.
By the end of the hearing, the High Court ordered Mohak Mangal to remove the objectionable parts of his video and to share a red-lined version with ANI for review. The bench noted that Mohd Zubair agreed to take down his post, while Kamra committed to modifying his content. The court listed the matter for further consideration on July 31, 2025.
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal with Advocate Sidhant Kumar
For Defendant: Senior Advocate Chander Lall with Advocates Ananya Mehan and Nakul Gandhi
Case Title: ANI v Mohak Mangal (CS(COMM) - 573/2025)