Latest news with #AltNews
Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Gag on freedom of expression shouldn't be a bail condition
Written by Shivani Vij A gag order restricts a person's ability to speak. Courts issue such orders, either preventively or punitively, to limit free expression. In a liberal democracy like India, where free speech is a cornerstone, gag orders are especially questionable, particularly when imposed as a bail condition. Recently, the criminal cases involving Ranveer Allahabadia (2025) and Ali Khan Mahmudabad (2025), along with the Supreme Court's controversial bail condition of 'no further speech', have faced strong public criticism. Such prior restraint not only sets a troubling precedent but also contradicts the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Mohammed Zubair's case, where a three-judge bench explicitly deemed gag orders unconstitutional. First, Ranveer Allahabadia, who is facing prosecution for his comments in the show India's Got Latent, was granted interim protection from arrest, however, on the condition that 'he or his associates shall not air any show on YouTube or any other audio/video mode of communication'. Further, he was required to provide an undertaking that his digital podcast would adhere to the so-called standards of decency and morality. Second, Mohammad Amir Ahmad (also known as Ali Khan Mahmudabad), who is facing prosecution for his social media posts on the recent terror attacks in India, was also granted interim bail on the condition that he would be 'restrained from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter response'. Significance of the Mohammed Zubair case These orders must be analysed in the context of Mohammed Zubair. The counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Zubair, of Alt News, be barred from tweeting when he is on bail. The State seemed to have thought that it would advance a fair trial and proper investigation. Or perhaps it presumed the accused's guilt at the FIR stage itself and that any further tweets would cause public unrest, despite conducting no inquiry or assessment on whether the statements actually constituted incitement. Rejecting this entirely, the court held that a gag order neither fits the illustrative bail conditions under Sections 437 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor does it have any nexus to a proper investigation or to secure the attendance of the accused. Besides, a blanket order asking the accused not to express his opinion, which he is entitled to as a citizen, is disproportionate and has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. It is unusual that the Supreme Court overlooked the significant precedent set in Zubair while issuing the recent gag orders. The Court also appeared to disregard the principle that bail conditions must be directly related to the ongoing investigation and its subject matter. There is no clear justification for how restricting future speech would assist in probing past media posts. Even if a later statement or comment incites public reaction, it would trigger a separate criminal case, rather than being linked to the existing one, which has already taken place. A right at the cost of another The prior restraining orders also seem to suggest that to uphold liberty under Article 21, the Court finds it necessary to limit free speech and the right to conduct business or practice a profession (Article 19(1)(g)), which has happened in these two cases. Such an interpretation significantly broadens the scope of reasonable restrictions under Article 21, effectively amounting to judicial censorship and infringing on other fundamental rights, particularly when the accused has not been found guilty in a court of law. This also bears similarities to preventive detention orders, which restrict a person's movement when there is a risk of crime or a threat to public safety; the key difference being that gag orders prevent the person from speaking, ostensibly to avoid harmful speech. It is rather odd that bail conditions in ordinary IPC/BNS offences have gathered the essence of preventive orders, which were meant to primarily safeguard law and order situations. Even the recent verdict in Wikimedia v ANI (2025) reiterates that it is not the court's domain to tell media houses what to say and what to delete or take down, with the only exception being postponement orders, which restrain media houses from delaying the reporting of a case. However, even those are for a limited duration and passed sparingly, only where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to trial (Sahara v SEBI). The recent gag orders are no doubt a disproportionate restriction on granting bail and should not become the practice of the highest constitutional court in the country, which is often adopted by the district courts and high courts. The writer is a Supreme Court advocate
Scroll.in
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Scroll Adda: How fact checkers fight IT cell disinformation
Play India is drowning in fake news. And much of it is produced by its own political parties. Dedicated so-called IT cells supported by highly paid consultants push disinformation on social media with the aim of converting voters to their point of view. This isn't limited to elections. Disinformation is warping Indian society itself. The past decade has seen an explosion of hate, a significant part of which has been powered by fake news. The first line of defence against this tsunami? Fact checkers. To understand how they battle this scourge, Scroll's political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, speaks to Alt News co-founder Pratik Sinha on the first episode of Scroll Adda. In a wide-ranging conversation, Sinha explains the toll disinformation has taken on India — and on his own mental health.
The Hindu
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi HC orders takedown of parts of Mohak Mangal's video targeting ANI
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 29, 2025) directed YouTuber Mohak Mangal to remove specific portions of his video targeting news agency ANI, in which he used terms such as 'hafta wasooli' (extortion), 'gunda raj', and 'kidnap'. The direction came during the hearing of a defamation suit filed by ANI over Mr. Mangal's video titled 'Dear ANI', published on May 25, 2025, on his YouTube channel. In the video, Mr. Mangal criticised ANI's practice of issuing copyright strikes against content creators. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, observed, 'These videos on the face of it are disparaging. You should have put it in a more civilized manner.' The judge asked the YouTuber, 'Let's say their [ANI's] demand is wrongful—how could you call it extortion?' The judge further questioned, 'How do you justify such language?' 'You [Mr. Mangal] don't want to take a licence but want to use their videos, which you believe is legally justified. Then why would you come out with these kinds of statements?' the judge added. Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, who was also sued by ANI for amplifying Mr. Mangal's views, agreed to take down one of his posts on X related to the issue. However, stand-up comic Kunal Kamra, also named in the suit, agreed to take down only one of his multiple posts on X. Mr. Kamra's counsel said his client is a well known satirist, comedian and an advocate for free speech. 'He stands up for free speech in his own unique way, putting thing in the public domain,' the counsel said. 'Satire is great. But the phrases you used are 'mafia', 'thugs'... I am all for free speech, but if you are calling someone thugs, this is not Ok. I even went to the extent of condoning the use of word 'gatiya', but 'thugs' and 'mafia' are serious,' Justice Bansal remarked. The ANI, in its petition, argued that Mr. Mogal's video has had a 'demonstrable adverse impact' on its goodwill, public credibility, and business operations. The agency said the video triggered widespread online harassment and adverse reactions from the public towards it. The agency pointed out that Mr. Mangal has admitted to using ANI's copyrighted video content in his own monetized videos. It said the video reflects a 'calculated and malicious attack on the reputation, credibility, and goodwill of the Plaintiff, but also its registered trademarks'.
Mint
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
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. Senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for ANI, told the court that Mangal had repeatedly used ANI's video clips without permission on his YouTube channel. He explained that ANI had issued copyright strikes through YouTube's automated system, two of which were upheld. The controversy, he said, erupted ahead of a third strike, with Mangal going public instead of engaging with ANI through formal channels. 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. In response, senior advocate Chander M. Lall from Mohak's team argued that the agency's demand for ₹ 40 lakh in exchange for lifting the copyright strikes amounted to extortion. 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.
Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
How disinformation affects the communal fabric of South Asia
As global currents of polarisation — from immigration tensions to communal conflicts — sweep the world, South Asia is no exception. The Pahalgam attack, where terrorists forced the tourists to reveal their religion before pulling the trigger, wasn't just a blow to Kashmir. It was a calculated strike on South Asia's fragile communal harmony and trust. Added to this was hate and disinformation that was spread through social media. In a time scarred by communal division, gestures of unity can be healing. At a press conference held by the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, where Sikh, Muslim, and Hindu officers — Commodore Raghu R Nair, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, and Colonel Sofia Qureshi — stood shoulder to shoulder to brief the press, there was a fleeting glimpse of a pluralist nation that stands against any communal onslaught. Meanwhile, Mohammad Zubair of Alt News, a fact-checker, earned rare acclaim for dismantling disinformation on X, a small victory for truth in a fractured public square. But social media platforms erupted with toxic lies, smearing minorities as disloyal, while TV anchors turned newsrooms into battlegrounds, peddling falsehoods. Unverified claims of Indian strikes on Islamabad and Karachi made headlines. In Pakistan, Hindu minorities faced a raw deal. Just a week before the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir declared, 'We differ from Hindus in every way'. The blunt Hindu-Muslim divide, articulated days before the attack, obliterated Pakistan's claims of restraint and any hope for diplomacy. Disinformation permeated press briefings. Media intensified falsehoods with concocted footage of Pakistani strikes on Delhi's airport, while the Deputy Prime Minister stoked national fervour for the air force, wielding a falsified Daily Telegraph clipping. Bangladesh, with 13 million Hindus, sidestepped the recent conflagration but could not escape its tremors. The interim government stayed neutral, yet public opinion leaned toward Pakistan, as per a few reports of The Diplomat. Also Read | In Trump vs Harvard, America is diminished It is a meticulously crafted crucible, designed to render every minority an alien in their own land. Disinformation surged to alarming extremes. Quite visible are the recycled Gaza explosions passed off as Indian strikes or video game clips and ARMA 3, floated as Pakistani military success, racking up millions of views on X before fact-checkers called them out. Algorithms, indifferent to truth, amplified engagement to turn smartphones into conduits of hate, silencing voices of peace. How to contain such a spread of disinformation? First, governments must cease tolerating a disinformation ecosystem that festers unchecked. Censoring media and imprisoning journalists only deepens public mistrust, while social media accounts spreading lies during conflict must cease their operation. Media literacy initiatives must lead the charge, equipping civil society with the tools to sharpen digital discernment. Second, countries need to protect the vulnerable. It would be beneficial to form task forces that would only track disinformation. The Pahalgam attack exposed how terror, hate, and disinformation can push South Asia's vibrant diversity into tatters. With nearly 220 million Hindu and Muslim minorities across three countries and a history of bad blood, South Asia cannot afford any communal flare-up through disinformation. The writer is a German Chancellor Fellow at the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, based in Berlin
