The Delhi High Court’s order to remove the Wikipedia page linked to ANI’s defamation case highlights the evolving dynamics between freedom of speech, online content, and judicial authority.

NEW DELHI (India CSR): In a significant move, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of a Wikipedia page related to a defamation lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against the online encyclopedia. The decision, announced on October 16, 2024, was seen as a major step in addressing the legal complexities around user-generated online content. The High Court found the Wikipedia page content to be “prima facie contemptuous,” leading to this decisive action.

Wikipedia Page Sparks Controversy

The Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation” became the center of a legal controversy after it purportedly carried remarks about a judge’s alleged threats to shut down Wikipedia in India. The court observed that such statements could potentially amount to contempt and interfere with ongoing legal proceedings. A division bench led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed Wikipedia to immediately take down the page before further hearings could proceed.

The directive came during a session where the Wikimedia Foundation challenged a previous ruling. This earlier ruling, issued by a single-judge bench, required a Wikipedia representative to appear in court and disclose the identities of editors responsible for adding alleged defamatory content about ANI. Despite Wikimedia’s appeal, the High Court held firm, reiterating the need to ensure that online content does not undermine the judicial process.

Global Implications of Court’s Decision

This ruling from the Delhi High Court is expected to reverberate beyond Indian borders, potentially setting a precedent for other countries grappling with user-generated content on platforms like Wikipedia. Free speech advocates around the world are closely watching the developments, concerned about the possible curtailing of online expression. At the same time, many see the ruling as a necessary step towards accountability for online platforms and the individuals who edit them.

Wikipedia, a globally recognized platform, relies on volunteers to create and maintain its content. However, when these contributions lead to legal complications, questions arise about where the responsibility truly lies. During the hearing, Wikipedia’s lawyer, Akhil Sibal, argued that the platform itself did not create the contentious content. However, he assured the court of full compliance with its directives, stating that Wikipedia would remove the page if ordered.

The outcome of this case may well influence how courts and online platforms interact globally, as countries seek to find a balance between the open flow of information and the protection of institutional integrity.

ANI vs. Wikipedia: The Background

The legal battle began with ANI filing a defamation suit against Wikipedia, demanding Rs. 2 crore in damages for what it described as “false and defamatory content with malicious intent.” ANI accused Wikipedia of tarnishing its reputation by implying that the news agency was acting as a government propaganda tool and disseminating fake news. This led the court, in August, to direct Wikipedia to reveal the identities of the three editors responsible for these edits within two weeks.

Wikipedia’s inability to comply with the initial order prompted ANI to file a contempt petition. This was followed by stern warnings from the court, including threats to shut down Wikipedia’s operations in India if the platform failed to take corrective action. The situation escalated to the point where the court noted that continued discussions on the Wikipedia page after its initial remarks had only aggravated the contempt.

Freedom of Speech vs. Judicial Integrity

The Delhi High Court’s intervention brings to the forefront the delicate balance between freedom of expression and maintaining the integrity of judicial processes. Wikipedia has long been a symbol of free information, with millions of users worldwide contributing to its vast repository of knowledge. However, the open nature of the platform also means that misinformation can spread rapidly, sometimes with serious consequences.

The court’s directive to remove content related to the single judge and division bench within 36 hours is a clear indication of the judiciary’s intent to prevent any influence on ongoing proceedings. The order stresses the importance of ensuring that public discourse, especially in legal matters, does not cross the boundaries of legality and respect for judicial authority.

Global Reactions and Concerns

The international community has shown mixed reactions to the High Court’s order. On one hand, proponents of judicial respect argue that platforms like Wikipedia must bear responsibility for content that may interfere with or misrepresent legal proceedings. On the other hand, free speech advocates warn of a dangerous precedent that could be used to stifle dissent and control narratives.

The Wikimedia Foundation, based in the United States, has faced similar legal issues before, but the potential ramifications of this case in India are particularly significant. India, with its large population of internet users, represents a major market for online platforms, and restrictive measures here could inspire similar actions in other jurisdictions. How Wikipedia responds to this challenge will likely shape its future operations in countries with stringent legal norms around content.

(India CSR)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (CS(OS) 524/2024) is an ongoing civil defamation case in India.

ANI Media Private Limited, the parent company of news agency Asian News International (ANI), filed a ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) over the description of ANI in the English Wikipedia article about the news agency.

The judge in the case has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country. Critics have characterized the judge’s order that the WMF release the identities of the editors who made the edits as censorship and a threat to the flow of information.^[2][3]

Background

Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia

ADVERTISEMENT

WMF is the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia, in multiple languages, and multiple other similar projects.^[4] Each project is independent and largely self-governed; the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) exerts limited authority over any project, typically not becoming involved with content policy.^[5][6] “Wikipedia in India” refers to Wikipedia’s media about India, the editors who develop that media, and the readers who consume it.^[7]

Wikipedia is created and maintained completely by volunteer “editors”, its term for anyone who makes as much a single typo correction on an article. Hundreds of thousands of such editors exist worldwide, and most can make changes to most articles on the website. A smaller number of editors make enough edits that they are allowed to edit nearly any article.^[4] Editors are anonymous, except those who voluntarily disclose their identities.^[6]

Wikipedia articles generally are protected if the article is experiencing a high level of vandalism or an edit-war, a series of back-and-forth reversions between two or more versions by two or more editors. Sometimes articles are protected because edits are being made by multiple editors with a conflict of interest, such as employees of an organization that is the subject of an article.^[6] In 2020 the article about news agency Asian News International was edited to include content from new sources discussing the agency’s record, and an edit war ensued — involving new editors making the same changes to remove the new additions — and the article was eventually protected.^[8][6]

Defamation in India

In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law, or both.^[9] According to the Constitution of India, the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to “reasonable restrictions”.^[10]

Safe Harbor in India

The Safe Harbor clause of Information and Technology Act, 2000, comparable to Section 230 of Communications Act of 1934 in the United States, exempts online platforms from any legal liability for third-party content generated by its users and hosted by the platform, subject to several conditions.^[11][12]

Court case

At the time of the suit’s filing, the Wikipedia article about Asian News International (ANI) said the news agency had “been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions”.^{[13][14][11][15]} The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing “false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency’s reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill”.^[6]

The filing argued that Wikipedia “is a platform used as public utility and as such cannot behave as a private sector”.^[5][16][3] It also complained that Wikipedia had “closed” the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia’s “own editors”, citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its “officials” to “actively participate” in controlling content.^{[5][16][15][17][18]} ANI asked for ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) in damages and an injunction against Wikipedia “making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI”.^[16][6]

The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors.^{[16][5][3][15][11]} ANI argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media “intermediary” within the definition of Information Technology Act, 2000, and must therefore comply with the requirements of the Act, including taking down any content that the government or its agencies deem violative, or be personally liable for content published under its platform.^[11] Chawla issued a summons to WMF, called the lawsuit “a pure case of defamation” and set a hearing date of 20 August.^[19][18] On 20 August 2024, Chawla ordered WMF to disclose identifying details of three editors (also defendants in the lawsuit) who had worked on the Wikipedia article about ANI to allow ANI to pursue legal action against them as individuals.^[13][2][20] Chawla ordered WMF to provide the information within two weeks.^[13]

On 5 September, ANI asked the court to find WMF in contempt when the identifying details were not released within the time frame.^[13][6] Chawla issued a contempt of court order and threatened to order the government of India to block Wikipedia in the country, saying “We will not take it any more. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India…We will close your business transactions here.”^{[21][22][8][23]} In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.^[13] Chawla ordered that an “authorised representative” of WMF appear in person at the next hearing, which was scheduled for 25 October 2024.^[13][20]

On 14 October, Delhi High Court justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia article about the defamation case, saying the article “disclos[ed] something about a sub-judice matter” and “will have to be taken down”, and scheduled review for 16 October.^[24][25][26] On 16 October, the court stated that “Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours”.^[27][28][29]

Analysis

According to Newslaundry, the sentence ANI objects to has “clear citations that lead to the primary source of information”, including to The Caravan, The Ken, BBC News, EU DisinfoLab, Politico, and The Diplomat. Newslaundry and journalist Nikhil Pahwa pointed out that none of the media organizations used as sources were included in ANI’s complaint.^[6][3] According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia.^[11]

ADVERTISEMENT

Nishant Shah, professor of Global Media at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, wrote that Chawla’s decision to order the release of personally-identifying information was “a challenge to freedom of speech and information” and would result in the censorship of “any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like”.^[2] Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to “stifle the flow of information and knowledge”.^[3] The Wikimedia Foundation commented on the case, stating that decisions on what to add to or change in an article are performed “by its global community of volunteer editors”, and that the foundation “does not add, edit or determine content”.^[30][14]

See also

• Censorship of Wikipedia
• Internet censorship in India
• Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation
• Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, the French Wikipedia version of which was deleted due to pressure from French authorities in 2013

References

1. ^ “CS(OS) 524/2024”. Delhi High Court. Retrieved 12 October 2024.
2. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Shah, Nishant (17 September 2024). “Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information”. The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
3. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Lobo, Simone (10 October 2024). “ANI case: How Delhi HC’s Wikipedia ban threat affects India”. MediaNama. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
4. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hafner, Katie (17 June 2006). “Growing Wikipedia Refines Its ‘Anyone Can Edit’ Policy”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on 12 December 2022. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d “Delhi HC Issues Notice To Wikipedia After ANI’s Plea”. Outlook India. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 14 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
6. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h} Explained: What’s ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about?. Newslaundry. 18 September 2024 – via YouTube.
7. ^ Gautam, John (2011). “Wikipedia in India: Past, Present, Future”. In Lovink, Geert; Tkacz, Nathaniel (eds.). Critical point of view : a Wikipedia reader. Institute of Network Cultures. pp. 283–287. ISBN 978-90-78146-13-1.
8. ^ Jump up to:^a b Deep, Aroon (10 September 2024). “On ANI’s defamation suit against Wikipedia | Explained”. The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
9. ^ Swamy, Subramanian (21 September 2004). “Defamation litigation: a survivor’s kit”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 22 July 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
10. ^ “Constitution (India)”. Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
11. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Khan, Khadija (10 July 2024). “Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?”. The Indian Express. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
12. ^ “Explained: ‘Safe Harbour’ Clause And Why Government Wants It Gone”. NDTV. Retrieved 17 October 2024.
13. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} “Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order”. The Hindu. 5 September 2024. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
14. ^ Jump up to:^a b Deep, Aroon (12 July 2024). “Content determined by volunteer editors, says Wikipedia parent”. The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 23 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Parasnis, Sharveya (10 July 2024). “ANI Sues Wikipedia for Defamation, Demands INR 2 Crore”. MediaNama. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
16. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Thapliyal, Nupur (9 July 2024). “ANI Files Rs 2 Crore Defamation Suit Against Wikipedia Before Delhi High Court, Summons Issued”. LiveLaw. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
17. ^ Singh, Abhinav (5 September 2024). “‘Please don’t work in India if…’: Indian court reprimands Wikipedia for not obeying orders”. WION. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b “News agency ANI files Rs 2 crore defamation suit against Wikipedia in Delhi High Court”. Deccan Herald. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 6 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
19. ^ “ANI files defamation suit against Wikipedia, seeks Rs 2 cr in damages”. The Siasat Daily. 9 July 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
20. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Delhi HC issues contempt notice to Wikipedia, warns of blocking website in country”. The Economic Times. 6 September 2024. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
21. ^ Krishna, Yadav (5 September 2024). “Delhi HC warns Wikipedia over ANI defamation case, issues contempt notice”. Mint. Archived from the original on 27 September 2024. Retrieved 17 October 2024.
22. ^ “ANI vs Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia’s impact on India and more”. The Hindu. 12 September 2024. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
23. ^ Jha, Prashant (5 September 2024). “”Will ask government to block you”: Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia”. Bar and Bench. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
24. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (14 October 2024). “Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI’s page”. Bar and Bench. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
25. ^ Thapliyal, Nupur (14 October 2024). “Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone”. LiveLaw. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
26. ^ “‘Extremely disturbing’: Delhi HC on Wikipedia’s refusal to identify ANI page editors”. Scroll.in. 14 October 2024. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
27. ^ Thapliyal, Nupur (16 October 2024). “‘Prima Facie Contemptuous’: Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI”. LiveLaw. Retrieved 16 October 2024.
28. ^ “ANI vs Wikipedia defamation case: Delhi High Court orders Wikimedia to take down ANI page within 36 hours”. The Hindu. 16 October 2024. Retrieved 16 October 2024.
29. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (16 October 2024). “Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to take down page on ongoing case filed by ANI”. Bar and Bench. Retrieved 17 October 2024.
30. ^ Hunt, Pete (23 September 2024). “Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?”. The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 October 2024.

External links

• Explained: What’s ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about? 2024 Newslaundry video
• Case status Delhi High Court