Delhi High Court seeks OpenAI reply on ANI copyright appeal

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed OpenAI to respond to news agency ANI's appeal against an order denying it interim protection in its copyright infringement suit. A Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora listed the matter for December 5. ANI, which sued in 2024, alleges its copyrighted material was used without authorisation to train ChatGPT. Justice Amit Bansal declined interim relief in July, saying it would not serve public interest.

Written by AI from ANI · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 15 Sept 2026, 9:56 pm IST

Source

ANI · read the original report ↗

#copyright#openai#ani#delhi high court#artificial intelligence

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (4)

Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sought OpenAI's response and listed the matter for December 5. — Attributed to the court in the source; bench names and hearing date appear in the text.
ANI filed the copyright suit in 2024 and was the first Indian media organisation to sue OpenAI over alleged infringement. — Stated in source without external citation; presented as background reporting.
Justice Amit Bansal declined interim relief in July, saying an injunction would not be in the public interest and that storage of ANI material for training did not at that stage appear to be infringement. — Attributed to the single judge's order as described in the source.
ANI's appeal argues Indian law provides 'fair dealing', and Section 52 of the Copyright Act does not permit commercial exploitation at scale. — Attributed to ANI's appeal; legal interpretation is a party's argument, not a court finding.

Written by AI from ANI · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This is a courtroom fight, but its real weight is political: it will help set the terms on which AI is governed in India. Justice Amit Bansal's "public interest" reasoning has, for now, strengthened the pro-technology, pro-AI-development narrative; ANI's appeal seeks to flip the frame to the narrower limits of "fair dealing" under Indian copyright law and to the rights of domestic content creators. The Division Bench merely asking OpenAI to respond settles nothing — but both the media industry and policy circles will now be watching December 5.

ANI's case matters politically because it is India's first test in a worldwide push by news organisations to be paid for content used by AI systems.
The refusal of interim relief is an immediate reprieve for OpenAI, and that very "public interest" reasoning is what ANI is targeting on appeal.
The "fair dealing versus fair use" argument could push the dispute out of pure litigation and into the legislative arena, towards a debate on Section 52 exceptions.
Whichever way the court leans, the pressure on the government to balance encouraging AI innovation against protecting creative-industry rights will only sharpen.
The outcome could be a template for other Indian media houses: a win for ANI strengthens collective bargaining power, a loss may push the industry towards a policy route rather than the courts.

What to watch — Watch how OpenAI frames its response on December 5, and whether other news organisations or industry bodies seek to weigh in on the dispute.

The story does not indicate any view on the merits of the case, nor does it establish any government position, policy change or involvement by other organisations.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 4 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

News agency Asian News International (ANI) sued OpenAI in the Delhi High Court in 2024, becoming the first Indian media organisation to take the ChatGPT maker to court over alleged copyright infringement. ANI alleges its copyrighted news content was used without authorisation to train and operate ChatGPT, and sought an interim injunction to stop OpenAI storing, reproducing, publishing or otherwise using that content. In July, single judge Justice Amit Bansal refused interim relief, holding such an order would not be in the public interest. ANI has appealed to a Division Bench, which has now asked OpenAI to reply.

Key facts

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought OpenAI's response to ANI's appeal against the denial of interim protection in its copyright infringement suit.
The Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora listed the matter for further hearing on December 5.
ANI filed the suit in 2024 and was the first Indian media organisation to take OpenAI to court over alleged copyright infringement.
ANI sought an interim injunction restraining OpenAI from storing, reproducing, publishing or otherwise using its copyrighted content.
Justice Amit Bansal declined interim relief in July this year, observing such an order would not be in the public interest.
The single judge held that OpenAI's storage of ANI's published news material for training ChatGPT did not, at that stage, appear to constitute copyright infringement.
The single judge observed an injunction could cause irreparable harm to OpenAI and to wider public interest, including the development and use of artificial intelligence.
ANI's appeal argues Indian law provides for 'fair dealing', not the broader 'fair use' doctrine, and that Section 52 of the Copyright Act does not permit commercial exploitation of copyrighted works at scale.

Timeline

2024ANI files a copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, the first such case by an Indian media organisation.
July (this year)Justice Amit Bansal declines ANI's plea for interim injunction, saying it would not be in the public interest.
Tuesday (as reported)Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora seeks OpenAI's response to ANI's appeal.
December 5Next hearing before the Division Bench.

Who has a stake

Asian News International (ANI) — Seeks to stop unauthorised use of its copyrighted news content for training and operating ChatGPT, and to overturn the denial of interim relief.
OpenAI — Must respond to the appeal; faces the prospect of an injunction on storing and using ANI's content for training ChatGPT.
Delhi High Court Division Bench (Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora) — Will decide whether the single judge's findings on interim relief and copyright infringement should stand.
Justice Amit Bansal (single judge) — Authored the July order refusing interim relief, now under challenge.
Indian news media and content owners — Outcome will shape whether news content can be used for AI training without authorisation.
AI developers and users / public — Court noted an injunction could harm public interest, including the development and use of artificial intelligence.

Why it matters

This is the first Indian case testing whether training a generative AI model on copyrighted news content amounts to infringement, and how far Section 52 exceptions stretch. The appeal squarely pits the narrower Indian "fair dealing" standard against the broader "fair use" approach used elsewhere. The Division Bench's view will influence licensing norms between news publishers and AI companies in India.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

ANI is the first Indian media organisation to sue OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement; suit filed in 2024 in the Delhi High Court.
Section 52 of the Copyright Act lists specific exceptions to infringement, including private or personal use and research.
Indian copyright law follows 'fair dealing' (enumerated exceptions), unlike the broader 'fair use' doctrine in some other jurisdictions.
Justice Amit Bansal (single judge) refused ANI interim injunction in July, citing public interest.
Appeal before Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora; next hearing December 5.
Interim injunction sought would have barred OpenAI from storing, reproducing, publishing or using ANI's copyrighted content.

Mains framing

The ANI–OpenAI litigation forces Indian courts to reconcile a copyright statute drafted for pre-AI publishing with the data-hungry economics of large language models. ANI's case rests on a textual reading of the Copyright Act: India recognises 'fair dealing' through the enumerated exceptions of Section 52, not an open-ended 'fair use' balancing test, and the exception for private or personal use including research cannot, it argues, shelter commercial exploitation of copyrighted works at scale. The single judge's July refusal of interim relief rested on a different balance — that storage of published news material for training did not, at that stage, appear infringing, and that an injunction risked irreparable harm to OpenAI and to the wider public interest in developing and using artificial intelligence. The tension is between protecting the incentive to produce original journalism and preserving space for AI innovation; both are public interests. A way forward suggested by the dispute itself lies in judicial clarification of the scope of Section 52 as applied to machine training, with negotiated licensing between publishers and AI firms filling the gap that litigation cannot. The Division Bench hearing on December 5 will be the next marker.

Key terms

ANI (Asian News International): Indian news agency; the plaintiff and first Indian media organisation to sue OpenAI over alleged copyright infringement.
Interim injunction: A temporary court order restraining a party pending final decision; ANI sought one barring OpenAI from using its content.
Fair dealing: The Indian approach permitting use of copyrighted work only within specific statutory exceptions, unlike the broader 'fair use' doctrine.
Section 52, Copyright Act: Provision listing acts that do not constitute copyright infringement, including private or personal use and research.
Division Bench: A two-judge bench of a High Court which hears appeals against orders of a single judge.
ChatGPT / OpenAI: The generative AI chatbot and its maker, accused of using ANI's copyrighted material without authorisation for training and operation.

Practice questions

Does the use of copyrighted news content to train a generative AI model fall within the exceptions under Section 52 of the Copyright Act? Discuss with reference to the ANI–OpenAI dispute.
Distinguish between 'fair dealing' under Indian copyright law and the 'fair use' doctrine followed in some other jurisdictions. Which better balances creators' rights and technological innovation?
'Injunctions against AI training may harm the public interest.' Critically examine this reasoning in the light of the Delhi High Court's July order refusing interim relief to ANI.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyShiv Sena backs Shah on UCC in NDA-ruled states →

← All stories