Fair Dealing, Free Speech and Platform Power - The ANI-Mohak Mangal Case and the Future of Copyright in India

Introduction

What will happen if the copyright law, made to protect creativity, becomes a weapon to silence it? This question came alive in a recent controversy between Asian News International (‘ANI’) and Mohak Mangal, a YouTuber, along with several prominent Indian social media creators in May 2025. They alleged ANI of leveraging copyright claims and forcing creators to pay large sums of money for using short clips of ANI in their content. In May 2025, YouTuber Mohak Mangal publicly accused ANI of issuing copyright claims and demanding hefty licensing fees, around Rs. 15-50 lakhs to revoke these strikes and threaten channel termination, referring to these fees as ‘extortion’. After Mangal’s revelation, many other creators reported similar experiences. In their defence, creators argue that their use of those clips would fall under the umbrella of fair use enshrined under Section 52 of the Copyright Act for commentary and criticism purposes. On the other hand, ANI maintains its stand that it is its legal right to issue copyright claims under Section 13 and Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act. This piece studies more than a creator-agency skirmish; it casts a spotlight on India’s vague fair dealing standards, the absence of a transformative-use, and no counter-appeal process, and uneven power dynamics between big content houses and digital creators. It also suggests some reforms to make the copyright framework in India clearer and more balanced, suited for today’s digital public sphere.

Fair Dealing in India: Courts, Controversies and Free Speech

At the heart of the ANI-Mangal Controversy lies a complex interplay between copyright protection, the doctrine of fair dealing, and freedom of expression in India, which shapes how content is created, shared, and contested in India’s digital space.

The creator and owner of the original video, which is ANI, holds exclusive rights under Section 13 and Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act. This means that any usage of original content, even if it is short, without permission, will constitute infringement unless there is a valid exception. The doctrine of fair dealing is one of the exceptions that has been used by Mangal in his defence. Relying on the rights granted by Section 14, ANI has issued copyright strikes against Mangal and other YouTube Creators for using its content without permission.

Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act allows limited use of copyrighted material for criticism, review, and reporting of the news, precisely the activities Mangal was involved in. This doctrine of fair dealing has also been used by Mangal and other creators, as the videos, which were copyrighted, served educational and commentary purposes. Section 52 leaves significant room for judicial interpretation, as the law does not define what the word “fair use” means for criticism, review, or news reporting. Unlike the US, fair use doctrine enshrined under 17 U.S. Code § 107, Indian copyright law does not explicitly recognise “transformative use”; any use that adds new meaning, purpose, or message to the original work is labelled as transformative use, as stated by United States (‘US’) Court in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. As a result, courts have to interpret on a case-by-case basis, and this absence of statutory guidelines creates confusion.

In the case of Wiley Eastern Ltd. v. Indian Institute of Management, it was stated that there is a connection between fundamental rights and the purpose of fair dealing in India. The Court ruled that Section 52 is the result of freedom and expression enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution. However, in the case of Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. News Nation Network Private Limited, the Bombay High Court held that even a small use (less than a minute) of copyrighted content for news reporting was not automatically protected under the doctrine of fair dealing. The court also held that a mere quantitative analysis of the duration of the content is not sufficient; the purpose and context should be analysed too. Similarly, in the case of Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House, the Court held that commercial use of copyrighted material, even for the use of research or private study, does not qualify for the defence of fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a)(i). This case reinforces that what matters to qualify under the doctrine of fair dealing is intent and commercial impact.

These divergent rulings of the court, about the defence of fair dealing, highlight the grey area and underscore the need for clearer legal standards to balance copyright protection with the right to critique and inform.

Constitutional Dimension

Finally, there remains an unresolved question of whether arbitrary or aggressive copyright claims can be labelled as an unreasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Courts in India are yet to apply the proportionality test on copyright disputes laid in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. This test would ask whether these restrictions are necessary, proportionate, and the least restrictive means to protect intellectual property rights. Such scrutiny would also frame copyright from merely a private property right to a regulatory limit on democratic discourse, especially when criticism, satire, or education are curtailed.

Platform Liability and Procedural Gaps

The dispute between ANI and Mohak Mangal highlights the roles of intermediaries like YouTube in copyright enforcement and the lack of safeguarding provisions for digital creators in India. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000 (‘IT Act’) states that intermediaries enjoy safe harbour from liability if they take prompt actions against the complaint, and in the ANI-Mangal case, when ANI filed copyright claims, YouTube issued strikes in line with this obligation enshrined under the IT Act. On the other hand, Section 512(g) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’) of the US has a counter notice provision to restore the disputed content if the claimant does not contest the counter notice. Whereas in India, there are no statutory provisions to challenge wrongful takedowns, and the only option left is to pursue legal remedies that could be intimidating for small digital creators.

Section 3(1)(j) and 3(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 require intermediaries to publish a transparency report and appoint a grievance officer, but these rules are largely procedural in nature and do not address the misuse of copyright claims. This asymmetry is further worsened by how the YouTube Content ID system works, as it scans the uploaded videos within a database and flags potential matches. Since this whole process is automated, it cannot distinguish between genuine infringement and legitimate fair use of the content. Though YouTube offers a dispute redressal system, the final decision often rests with the complainant, leaving creators with no meaningful recourse except legal action.

In the present ANI-Mangal Controversy, it means that ANI could keep a disputed claim active. While Mangal and other creators continue to face strikes and demonetisation.  This creates a power imbalance where large organisations have the power to enforce claims aggressively, while creators have no practical and affordable route to contest against them.

Novel Reform Pathways

India needs structural innovations that resolve disputes and adapt copyright law to the realities of the digital public sphere. The patchwork solutions are not going to work anymore, and they point us toward a handful of reforms that could reshape the system.

1. Copyright and Fair Use Board

The fact that creators have to go through a hectic litigation process to challenge wrongful takedown is one of the prominent challenges in the current framework of copyright law in India, which sometimes results in small creators giving up rather than fighting for their rights. A dedicated Copyright and Fair Use Board would act as a quasi-judicial body with powers to resolve disputes within strict timelines. This mechanism would mirror a small-claims copyright tribunal like the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in the U.K. and the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) in the U.S.

2. Statutory Recognition of Transformative Use

Indian copyright law makes no explicit reference to ‘transformative use’, which makes courts stretch the meaning of fair dealing on a case-by-case basis, and this lack of clarity results in confusion. A statutory clause recognising transformative use would provide that much-needed clarity covering the works that add new meaning, commentary, or political expression to existing content. India could adopt a similar approach to the U.S Four Factor test under 17 U.S. Code § 107, but modify it by explicitly prioritising those uses related to free speech as per law, parody, satire, critique of the state, etc. The Four Factor test examines the purpose and character of the use, the nature of original work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken and its effect on the market. If India chooses to adopt this framework, courts could use these four factors to check whether the new work adds something genuinely new, whether the work is highly creative, whether only the necessary portion was used or whether the use harms the original work's commercial value or not. If India adopts this, it will help to protect political satire, academic work, news commentary and social critique. This will also ensure that copyright encourages creativity without becoming a tool to silence criticism.  

3. Platform Accountability Beyond Automation

Regulation of the roles of intermediaries or platforms like YouTube is also the need of the hour. The automated Content ID system cannot distinguish between infringement and fair use. To counter this, an independent third-party arbitration is needed to create a neutral check against corporate overreach while ensuring that rights holders are not left powerless.

Intermediaries should be legally bound to publish transparent data on copyright claims. This data must include how many claims were filed, how many claims were upheld and how many were withdrawn. Putting this information in the public sphere would help users to understand how the system functions, reveal the pattern of misuse, and it would strengthen accountability across online platforms. These transparency obligations, modelled after Article 17 of the EU Digital Single Market Directive, would shed light on whether copyright is being used as a shield for rights or as a sword for criticism.

Conclusion

The ANI-Mangal controversy is not a question of a media company against digital creators, but about the challenges the Indian copyright framework faces. What started as a few individual complaints about ‘extortionate’ licensing demands has escalated into a debate about fair dealing, freedom of expression, and the power imbalance between big corporations and digital creators. The current copyright framework protects copyright, but its exceptions seem vague, meaning, platforms, courts, and other stakeholders have to operate in a grey area. This imbalance is further exacerbated by the lack of statutory recognition for transformative use, the absence of counter-notice procedures, and the overdependence of intermediaries on automated enforcement systems.

The solution involves recalibrating copyright, not discarding it entirely. There is a requirement for structural reforms like the establishment of a Fair Use Board, statutory recognition of transformative use, and stronger accountability of platforms. This can help strike the balance required for fair use. If India’s copyright law intends to protect creativity, it must cease being a weapon of suppression and evolve into a protection for both innovation and critical expression.

---

This runners-up entry has been authored by Ashutosh Mishra, a second-year student at the Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur. It is a part of the RSRR's Blog Series on 'Ideas in Motion: Contemporary Frontiers in Intellectual Property Law’, in collaboration with Ahlawat & Associates.