YouTuber Mohak Mangal's video about ANI appears disparaging, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed on Thursday that a video published by YouTuber Mohak Mangal which accused news agency ANI of extortion appeared prima facie to be disparaging.

Justice Amit Bansal, hearing a defamation suit filed by ANI, said the content appeared to merit the agency’s concerns and asked Mangal’s counsel to take instructions on removing certain portions of the video. These include expressions such as “hafta vasooli”, “kidnapping,” and “goondaraj”, which ANI claims are defamatory. "This video on the face of it is disparaging " said Justice Bansal after the video was played in court.

The matter is expected to resume after the lunch recess, when Mangal’s legal team will update the court on whether they are willing to remove the contested language.

The case stems from a video Mangal published on 25 May in which he accused ANI of blackmail and extortion. He alleged that a representative of the agency demanded more than ₹40 lakh to lift copyright strikes issued against his channel for using ANI’s footage without permission.

According to YouTube's support website, if a channel gets three copyright strikes it is subject to termination along with any associated channels. “If your channel is terminated, all the videos uploaded to your account will be made inaccessible,” it says.

Sibal said ANI had offered a subscription licence to Mangal, which he declined. He suggested Mangal was now attempting to portray a legitimate enforcement of copyright as an act of intimidation or coercion.

He also argued that the video went beyond criticism and was part of a broader, targeted campaign to harm ANI’s public standing. He pointed its amplification on social media by public figures such as comedian Kunal Kamra and fact checker Mohammed Zubair of Alt News, which added to the agency's reputational damage.

Sibal noted that the video used inflammatory language such as “extortion” and “goondaraj”, which triggered a wave of online abuse against ANI and its employees. He sought a John Doe order to prevent its further dissemination by unidentified parties and indicated that ANI would file a separate copyright infringement suit.

Lall also claimed that ANI could not assert exclusive ownership over news footage that concerned matters of public interest, and that the agency was targeting the YouTuber.

He argued that a series of news reports have suggested that ANI is running an extortion racket targeting content creators. However, ANI has not countered those those reports, he added.

Lall maintained that ANI could not ask him to purchase a license, and that this was a form of extortion by the news agency. If the issue was about copyright infringement, why had ANI not filed a copyright lawsuit, he asked.