In the appeal filed by the news agency Asian News International (ANI), which contested an earlier order denying interim relief in the copyright case between it and AI company OpenAI, the Delhi High Court has asked for a response from OpenAI.

Notice was issued to OpenAI by the Division Bench consisting of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on September 15, and the case was listed for hearing in December. The court also rejected the option of passing any interim order against OpenAI without listening to their response first.

ANI has filed its original suit against OpenAI in 2024, stating that its copyrighted news content was being used without permission to train and run ChatGPT. There have also been instances of complaints from ANI regarding the use of their content by ChatGPT in some cases, along with attributing the statements and news articles made by ANI to which it has denied any publication on its part.

In its appeal, it contests the order of Justice Amit Bansal dated July 24, 2026, where he did not grant any interim injunction to ANI in light of the fact that storing of ANI’s material by OpenAI for training its large language models does not appear to amount to copyright infringement and would lead to prejudice to OpenAI and public interest issues at large.

ANI states that the Indian copyright laws provide for “fair dealing” as opposed to the concept of “fair use” in the United States, along with the fact that the statutory exceptions available under section 52 of the Copyright Act are confined to specified uses only. 

The case, however, brings to light issues beyond the scope of law regarding the utilization of copyrighted news content for AI training, content storage, and AI responses. Some of the concerns that were raised during the earlier hearings of the case include whether the storage of copyrighted content for AI training infringes on copyrights and whether Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction if the infrastructure used by the AI is based outside India.

At the moment, the July order stands until the case makes its way through appeals.