In June 2026, a legal battle erupted that has captured the attention of millions across India, pitting one of the country’s most prominent news anchors against a popular educator. Anjana Om Kashyap, Managing Editor at Aaj Tak, filed a ₹2 crore civil defamation suit against Faisal Khan, better known as Khan Sir, a Patna-based teacher famous for his affordable YouTube lessons. This clash is more than just a personal dispute; it has become a focal point for debates on media credibility, the democratization of education, and the use of litigation to silence criticism.
The Spark: “Do Kaudi Ke Teachers”
The controversy began on May 29, 2026, during a live debate on Aaj Tak concerning NEET examination malpractices and the rise of online coaching. During the broadcast, Kashyap turned her fire toward “YouTube star teachers,” describing them as “explainers” who “know nothing” and run their platforms solely to “grab views, do drama, and make money”. Most inflammatory was her reported use of the phrase “do kaudi ke” (worthless or not worth two coins) to describe these educators.
The backlash was immediate. Khan Sir, along with other educators like Abhinay Sharma and Babita Tyagi, responded sharply on social media. They accused the mainstream media of acting as “fake news ki dukaan” (shops of fake news) and “bikau patrakar” (sold-out journalists), arguing that while teachers were helping students navigate paper leaks and unemployment, anchors in air-conditioned studios were busy demeaning them.
The Legal Response and High Court Ruling
Kashyap and the TV Today Network responded by moving the Delhi High Court, alleging that the educators’ responses were “scandalous, false, and grossly defamatory”. The suit seeks ₹2 crore in damages and the immediate removal of the allegedly toxic content from social media.
However, on June 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, refused to grant any interim relief or injunction. The court directed the defendants to file their replies and listed the matter for further hearing on June 17. Defense counsel argued that Kashyap had bundled multiple distinct causes of action into a single suit and noted that if the defendants’ posts were to be removed, Kashyap’s own provocative remarks should face the same scrutiny.
The Crisis of Trust in Mainstream Media
This controversy unfolds against a backdrop of declining faith in India’s mainstream press. Critics argue that anchors like Kashyap have largely failed to cover critical issues, such as the ethnic violence in Manipur, the brutal murder of freelance journalist Mukesh Chandrakar, or the systemic failure of food safety regulations.
Relevant statistics highlight this “press freedom crisis”:
- World Press Freedom Index: In 2026, India is ranked 157th out of 180 countries, a drop from 151st in 2025.
- Media Priorities: While prime-time news often focuses on sensationalism, YouTube has become a primary source for investigative journalism and affordable education.
Democratizing Education vs. The Coaching Mafia
For many, Khan Sir represents a transformation in Indian education. While traditional coaching in hubs like Kota can cost families over ₹1.5 lakh annually, YouTube educators have democratized access for students who earn as little as ₹10,000 a month.
However, some critics—even those who dislike the mainstream media—argue that neither side is entirely altruistic. On platforms like YouTube, “star teachers” are sometimes accused of being profit-driven businessmen who use emotional marketing to keep students trapped in a “government job cycle” rather than encouraging diverse career paths or innovation.
Conclusion: A Battle for the Public Square
The Anjana Om Kashyap vs. Khan Sir case is being viewed by many as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)—a legal tool used to silence critics by burying them under the weight of litigation.
As the case moves forward, it forces India to look in the mirror. Is the “fourth pillar” of democracy collapsing into a tool for the powerful? Or can the digital public square—messy and imperfect as it is—remain a space where a teacher can hold a news anchor accountable without facing a multimillion-rupee lawsuit?
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant an immediate injunction suggests that, for now, the courtroom will not be used to quickly silence this public debate.
FAQ (Frequently Asked Question)
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, declined to grant any interim relief or an immediate injunction in the ₹2 crore defamation suit filed by Anjana Om Kashyap and the TV Today Network.
On June 8, 2026, the court’s ruling included the following key actions:
- Issued Notices: The court issued notices to the defendants, including Faisal Khan (Khan Sir) and other educators like Abhinay Sharma and Babita Tyagi.
- Ordered Replies: The defendants were directed to file their formal replies to the application for an interim injunction.
- Refused Blanket Removal: Despite Kashyap’s counsel arguing that the social media content was “toxic,” “abusive,” and “inciting violence,” the court refused to order its immediate removal without first hearing the defendants’ side.
- Next Hearing Date: The court listed the matter for a further hearing on June 17, 2026.
During the proceedings, the court heard several preliminary arguments from the defense that contributed to the decision to withhold an immediate injunction. Counsel for the defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable because it “bundled” multiple distinct causes of action against various defendants into a single filing. Furthermore, defense advocates pointed out that if their clients’ posts were to be taken down, Kashyap’s own provocative “do kaudi ke” remarks should face the same scrutiny.
While the court orally observed that derogatory material generally must be pulled down under settled law, it maintained that it needed to examine the specific allegations and the defendants’ counter-submissions before passing such an order.
Specific allegations regarding the NEET exam controversy centered on systemic failures and integrity issues that sparked nationwide student protests in 2026. According to the sources, the primary allegations include:
- Paper Leaks: There were widespread reports and allegations of actual exam paper leaks, which were described as a “scandal” that shook the credibility of India’s competitive examination system. These leaks were cited as having stolen years of preparation from a generation of students.
- Examination Malpractices: The controversy involved broader claims of malpractices within the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test system.
- Institutional and Regulatory Failure: Critics and students alleged a “systemic institutional failure” regarding the management of the exam. This included concerns about the fairness and accountability of the education system.
- Flawed Evaluation Systems: Some allegations specifically targeted evaluation methods, such as the “flawed” On-Screen Marking (OSM) system used by the CBSE, which was accused of having “large-scale irregularities and deficiencies”.
- Media and Government Neglect: A significant part of the public outcry, particularly from YouTube educators, was that mainstream media provided only “fragmented and inconsistent coverage” of the scandal. Allegations were made that media figures, such as Anjana Om Kashyap, chose to target educators rather than addressing the actual paper leaks and student unemployment issues.
The defamation case between Anjana Om Kashyap and Khan Sir is viewed as a significant indicator of the current state of press freedom in India, revealing a “sustained, decade-long deterioration” in the country’s media landscape.
According to the sources, this case highlights the following critical aspects of India’s press freedom:
1. Deteriorating Global Standing
The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of declining international rankings for India’s media environment:
- World Press Freedom Index: In 2026, India is ranked 157th out of 180 countries, a drop from 151st in 2025.
- Score Decline: India’s press freedom score fell from 40.34 in 2014 to 31.28 in 2024, placing it firmly in the “very serious” category alongside territories under active military occupation.
- Systemic Crisis: Reporters Without Borders (RSF) notes that concentrated media ownership and overt political alignment have created a crisis in what is termed “the world’s largest democracy”.
2. Weaponization of Defamation Laws (SLAPP Suits)
Critics argue that this ₹2 crore suit is a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
- Silencing Criticism: These suits are reportedly used not to seek justice, but to silence critics through the “machinery of litigation”—where the legal fees, time, and anxiety of the process itself serve as the punishment.
- Legal Intimidation: The case is seen as part of a pattern where powerful media entities and corporate interests use civil and criminal defamation to “bury” independent voices and educators who lack the resources to fight back.
- Judicial Observation: The Supreme Court of India has acknowledged that the time has come to decriminalize defamation, implicitly admitting that these laws are being “weaponized”.
3. Crisis of Credibility and “Godi Media”
The case reveals a deep public distrust in mainstream television journalism, often pejoratively labeled “Godi Media” (lapdog media).
- Editorial Priorities: While mainstream anchors focus on sensationalism or targeting educators, they are accused of failing to cover vital issues like the NEET paper leak, the Manipur violence, or the collapse of food safety regulations.
- Information Warfare: Observers describe current mainstream reporting as a form of “psychological information warfare” that prioritizes narrative management—such as suddenly emphasizing an individual’s religious identity—over balanced reporting.
4. Physical Danger for Journalists
The sources point out a stark contrast between the legal energy spent on high-profile defamation suits and the lack of outrage over physical violence against grassroots reporters:
- Fatalities: India remains one of the world’s most dangerous countries for media, with an average of three to four journalists killed annually.
- Specific Cases: In 2025 alone, there were nine murders and 33 attacks on journalists. The murder of freelance journalist Mukesh Chandrakar, who was killed after exposing a ₹120-crore corruption scandal, reportedly received little sustained attention from national news networks compared to the “do kaudi ke” controversy.
5. Shift to Digital Authority
Finally, the case reflects a shift in the “information economy.” Authority is moving away from traditional television studios toward YouTube and independent digital platforms. For many Indians, these “YouTube star teachers” and independent reporters are now seen as more credible and accessible than the mainstream media, which has led to a perceived battle for control over the public narrative.
