The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to OpenAI seeking its response to an appeal filed by Asian News International (ANI) challenging a single-judge's refusal to grant interim relief in its copyright infringement suit against the AI company. A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order after hearing arguments from ANI's counsel.
The Bench noted that the matter would be listed for hearing on December 5, 2026, to allow OpenAI an opportunity to file its response to the appeal. ANI had approached the Court after a single-judge Bench, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, declined to grant an interim injunction restraining OpenAI from using ANI's copyrighted content to train and operate ChatGPT.
In its suit filed in 2024, ANI alleged that OpenAI had unlawfully reproduced and used its news content without authorization to develop and improve its large language model, ChatGPT. As interim relief, ANI had sought a court order directing OpenAI to cease storing, publishing, reproducing, or using any of its copyrighted material.
Justice Amit Bansal, in his earlier order, had refused the injunction on the grounds that granting such relief would be contrary to public interest. He observed that there was no prima facie case of copyright infringement in OpenAI's use of ANI's content for training ChatGPT. The judge further reasoned that an interim injunction would not only harm OpenAI's operations but could also adversely affect broader public interest in AI development and access to information.
ANI, in its appeal before the Division Bench, contended that the single judge had erred in applying the doctrine of fair use under United States law to interpret Indian copyright provisions. It emphasized that Indian law recognizes only fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which constitutes a closed and exhaustive list of permitted purposes, and does not include the broad concept of 'private or personal use, including research' as interpreted by the single judge.
The news agency argued that interpreting this phrase to cover large-scale commercial exploitation by AI developers effectively expands the statutory exception beyond what Parliament intended. ANI submitted that if such use were considered fair dealing, it would undermine the licensing market for news content, citing OpenAI's own agreements with international publishers like the Financial Times for training data as evidence of a recognized commercial market.
Representing ANI, advocate Sidhant Kumar informed the Court that OpenAI had, during the pendency of the suit prior to the impugned order, voluntarily undertaken not to scrape or download content from ANI's website. He stated that this assurance had been given by OpenAI as an interim arrangement from September 11, 2024, until the date of the single-judge's order.
The Division Bench, however, clarified that it would not issue any directions regarding this voluntary undertaking at this stage, emphasizing the need to first hear OpenAI's response before passing any orders on the matter.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Broadband India Forum as an intervenor, urged the Court to hear the forum's submissions, highlighting the global implications of the case. He questioned whether the forum could be impleaded as a party at all stages of the proceedings. The Bench responded by asking Sibal to clarify the forum's status and assist the Court on the next date of hearing, while indicating that a formal intervening application could be filed.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, also representing the Broadband India Forum, confirmed that a formal application for intervention would be submitted in due course. After issuing notice to OpenAI, the Court proceeded to schedule the matter for further hearing in December.
The case marks the first copyright infringement suit filed by an Indian media house against OpenAI, raising significant questions about the applicability of copyright law to AI training data and the balance between intellectual property rights and technological innovation in the Indian legal context.