Delhi HC Orders Mohak To Remove Defamatory Statements against ANI from Impugned Video
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, directed YouTube influencer Mohak Mangal to remove defamatory content against news agency ANI from the impugned video titled 'I am Mohak and I am not scared'. The matter was heard by the bench of Justice Amit Bansal. The bench remarked, "I am giving a reasonable suggestion to you. You have a dispute with them, that's all right. But you cannot make such statements".
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. According to ANI’s counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, Mohak had unlawfully used copyrighted material on six occasions. ANI issued strikes under YouTube’s content policies, following which Mohak uploaded a video accusing ANI of extortion.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal refuted the allegations in the video and submitted that Mohak had launched a vilifying campaign against the news agency. He stated that the video in question included false narratives, defamatory language, and even a fabricated voice call. Senior Advocate Sibal argued that Mohak not only infringed copyright but also encouraged viewers to unsubscribe from ANI and branded him a thug.
Senior Advocate Sibal submitted, "This is all spiraling. We are accused of extortion, gundaraj and thugery...This campaign is vilifying and per se, defamatory".
Senior Advocate Sibal further noted that Mohak's video had garnered over five million views, thereby aggravating the reputational harm caused. He also informed the court that other individuals, including public figures Kamra and Zubair, had echoed Mohak's claims, quoting his statements and publishing further defamatory content.
"We had made an offer for 45 Lakhs + GST, which Mohak could have refused to enter. As is his right to refuse, but rather he made such a defamatory video", Senior Advocate Sibal added.
In response, Senior Advocate Chander Lall, representing Mohak, contended that the use of brief video excerpts—ranging from 5 to 18 seconds in a 30-minute video—fell under “fair use”. He maintained that ANI held no right to demand licensing or impose such monetary penalties.
When questioned by the bench, Senior Advocate Lall argued that his client had a right to expose alleged coercion by ANI. However, the court raised concerns over specific phrases used in the video, such as "hafta vasuli" and "gundaraj", observing that such language amounted to disparagement.
The bench viewed the disputed video and sought evidence supporting Mohak’s claim regarding ANI’s alleged ₹5 lakh per penalty demand. Senior Advocate Lall assured the bench that recordings would be presented post-lunch.
The bench advised Mohak’s counsel to exercise restraint and suggested a redacted version of the video be submitted. The court emphasized that while a dispute may exist, defamatory content could not be justified. The bench also directed Google to submit relevant terms and conditions concerning copyright strikes on YouTube.
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)