Introduction
In a recent development that underscores a serious legislative loophole, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) demanding specific laws to curb sexual violence against animals. The petition, filed by the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO), argues that the repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has inadvertently left animals vulnerable, with no explicit protection against sexual abuse.
Section 377, until its removal with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, was the only statutory provision under which individuals could be prosecuted for sexually abusing animals. While the section itself was controversial—historically criminalizing consensual homosexual relations—it also covered non-consensual and abusive acts against animals. Its deletion has now resulted in what FIAPO and other animal rights groups describe as a “legal vacuum.”
The petition cites nearly 50 reported cases of bestiality from across the country, including shocking incidents in Delhi and Coimbatore. Despite the graphic nature and brutality of such cases, perpetrators currently face limited legal consequences, largely because of the lack of a clearly defined statutory provision. This has prompted growing concern from advocacy groups like PETA India, who are calling for urgent amendments in the new criminal code to ensure that animals are not left defenceless.
Although the Delhi High Court has not taken a legislative stance, it has acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and forwarded the matter to the Central Government. This move is seen as a positive step toward igniting policy-level discussions and possible amendments. The government now faces the responsibility of ensuring that India’s legal framework continues to uphold animal rights and welfare in the evolving legal landscape.
Read another similar story
TAKE DOWN THE TWEET: DELHI HIGH COURT TO YOUTUBER MOHAK AND KUNAL
INTRODUCTION
The Delhi High Court heard ANI’s defamation complaint against YouTuber Mohak Mangal on May 29 in relation to a purportedly offensive video. The Court also discussed the video-related tweets made by comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair during the hearing.
The defamation lawsuit brought by news organization ANI against YouTuber Mohak Mangal, who is alleged to have posted a derogatory and defamatory video against ANI, is still being heard by the Delhi High Court.
This article will look at the case’s specifics and the rationale for the ruling. Additionally, ANI (Asian News International) will be studied.
ABOUT THE CASE
The Court also reviewed relevant social media posts made by comedian Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of AltNews, who both tweeted about Mangal’s video during the hearing. The High Court noted Zubair’s readiness to remove his message willingly and verbally ordered Kamra to remove his initial tweet, which contained harsh language critical of ANI.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
Justice Amit Bansal noted during the hearing that Mohammed Zubair, a co-founder of AltNews, had tweeted about the allegedly defamatory video that Mohak Mangal had posted.
Justice Bansal: “I’m going to order the first tweet to be taken down for the time being.”
Advocate Soutik Banerjee made the following submission while speaking on Zubair’s behalf: “I have just sent one tweet. YouTube is not what I do. I’m not profiting from this. The most civilized is this. I’m ready to remove it.
“Tweets shall be taken down within 24 hours,” the court noted. The plaintiff does not seek remedies against Defendant No. 3 Mohd. Zubair in light of the aforementioned. Delete Defendant No. 3 from the list of parties.
ABOUT THE TWEET
The Court also looked at comedian Kunal Kamra’s tweets, in which he made strong references to ANI. Justice Bansal said, “Satire is good,” in response to Kamra’s attorney’s claim that his client was a satirist and had nothing to do with the main defamation issue. You’re welcome. But I don’t see any sarcasm or humor in the terms you chose, such “mafia” and “thugs.”
The Court gave Kamra’s attorney instructions to remove the initial tweet. “The tweet is addressed to Smita Prakash,” Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, who was speaking on behalf of ANI, stated in response. Justice Bansal responded sternly, saying, “This tweet is hugely unacceptable.” “It is fair comment, my lord,” Kamra’s attorney said in defense of the tweet. The public is interested in these issues.
“Is it possible to mistreat someone in the name of the public interest?” said Justice Bansal. Who are you referring to when you say “these”? Are you prepared to remove it?
“No, my lord,” Kamra’s attorney retorted. I have no directives to follow suit. Justice Bansal reiterated his disapproval of the terminology used, saying: “I support free expression, but labeling someone a thugs or a mafia member is a serious offense. You have a sizable fan base. According to Kamra’s attorney, “This is fair comment, my lord.”
Justice Bansal: “The first tweet must be removed. I can’t let this happen. The second tweet is OK to me. “Once the first tweet goes, the reference to ANI goes,” Justice Bansal said in response to ANI’s attorney’s argument that the tweet implied extortion by ANI.
However, Kamra’s attorney countered that the tweets were connected as a thread: “No, my lord. The tweets are connected; if the first one disappears, the second one does too.
In a hilarious reply, Justice Bansal said, “I’m not sure. I’ve never made use of X.
The Delhi High Court resumed hearing the news agency ANI’s defamation case against YouTuber Mohak Mangal before lunch. Mangal is accused of uttering defamatory and derogatory remarks in a recent video.
ABOUT THE VIDEO
In the May 25 video, Mangal accused ANI of blackmail and extortion, stating that ANI had copyrighted his YouTube videos for taking brief excerpts from their material. He claimed that in order to end those strikes, an ANI representative sought more than Rs. 40 lakh.
However, ANI said that the film was a purposeful attempt to damage the agency’s registered brands and image. According to ANI’s petition, Mangal produced a defamatory video after acknowledging that they had used their own copyrighted videos to generate income.
ANI added that the film contained defamatory statements, trademark infringement, and incorrect information with the intention of discouraging people from utilizing ANI’s services.
CONCLUSION
The Court noted during the proceedings that certain parts of the film were “offending” and amounted to disparagement because of the tone and material employed.
In addition to exploiting ANI’s copyrighted footage without authorization, Mangal was also making money by publishing defamatory content, said to Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, who was arguing on behalf of ANI.
They draw attention, he has 4.2 million members, and he makes money off of my content. My registered trademark is put there by him. In brief letters, he claims that the transcription of a fictitious discussion he had with me was a recreation, Sibal stated. Additionally, he cited posts by comedians and fact-checkers Mohammed Zubair and Kunal Kamra, alleging they were a part of a bigger scheme to damage ANI’s reputation.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
SAHIL YADAV, a law student at NLIU Bhopal, is a dedicated and passionate legal writer, who is keen to explore International law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Forensic Psychology and publish research papers and articles on contemporary legal nuances and issues. He is also interested in the intersection of disciplines like history, psychology, political science, philosophy, and sociology with law.