Wikipedia Responsible For Contents Posted On It, Can't Cite Intermediary Status: Delhi High Court In ANI Defamation Case

The Delhi High Court has observed that Wikipedia cannot wash its hands of the contents published on it by merely claiming that it is an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statements published on the platform.

“Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia) professes itself to be an encyclopedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

It added, "...this Court is of the opinion that Defendant No. 1, being an intermediary has some fiduciary responsibilities and obligations to prevent acts of defamation."

The Court made the observations while directing Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, to remove allegedly defamatory statements published against news agency ANI on its Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International.”

Perusing ANI's Wikipedia page, the Court said that the statements on it were all sourced from articles which were nothing but editorials and opinionated pages.

“Defendant No.1 which is following the policy to avoid stating opinions as facts and also professing it to be an encyclopedia has to also see as to whether the opinions are actually based on the source articles or not so that neutral policy of Defendant No.1 is not violated,” the Court said.

It concluded that the statements on ANI's page were not verbatim reproduction of such articles, and were written in such a way which was totally contradictory to the intent with which the original Articles were written.

“…the impugned statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff on the Platform of Defendant No. 1 are devoid of the context of the Articles,” the Court said.

Justice Prasad concluded that the statements against ANI were ex-facie defamatory and tarnishes its professional reputation.

“…this Court finds that the opinion of Defendants No.2 to 4 do not represent the true picture of the articles and have been twisted by Defendants No.2 to 4. Further, this Court finds merit in the allegation of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1 has ensured that the articles cannot be edited by anybody else, thereby putting Plaintiff in a disadvantage to rebut what is given in the page. Therefore, the present application is allowed in terms of prayer (b) and (c) of the application,” the Court said.

The Court disposed of ANI's interim injunction plea seeking removal of the content as well as to restrain Wikipedia from publishing the same on the news agency's page on its platform.

The interim injunction plea forms part of ANI's Rs. 2 crore defamation suit against Wikimedia Foundation.

Prayer 2 of the interim injunction plea sought a direction on Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content against ANI on its Wikipedia page as well as to restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency.

Prayer 3 sought a direction on Wikipedia to remove the protection status imposed on the ANI page.

Wikipedia's page says ANI "has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events.”

In its suit against Wikimedia Foundation and its officials, ANI has said that the former has allegedly published palpably false and defamatory content with malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation and to discredit its goodwill.

In August last year, Wikipedia was directed by the Court to disclose to ANI the subscriber details of the three individuals available with it within two weeks.

Wikipedia challenged the said order before the division bench which took exception to a dedicated page the platform on the pending defamation proceedings.

The Wikipedia page in question was titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.” It read “The judge in the case has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.”

Later, the division bench had ordered take down of the page in question, noting that adverse comments were made against the single judge on the page which was prima facie contemptuous.

Wikipedia's appeal was disposed of after both the parties entered into a consent order and resolved the matter. The division bench had then asked the single judge to proceed ahead with the defamation suit.

In November, Justice Prasad had issued summons to three individuals who allegedly edited the Wikipedia page of ANI.

Recently, the Supreme Court issued notice on Wikipedia's appeal against the division bench's order directing removal of Wikipedia page relating to the defamation dispute.

Counsel for ANI: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Om Batra, Mr. Akshit Mago and Ms. Anshika Saxena, Advocates

Counsel for Wikipedia: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tine Abraham, Mr. Nikhil Narendran, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhijnan Jha, Ms. Shivani Rawat, Mr. Thomas J. Vallianeth, Mr. Aayush Marwah, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Mr. Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Mr. Bakhshind Singh, Mr. Pranav Tomar, Ms. Jasleen Virk, Ms. Diva Saigal, Advocates

Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.

Click here to read order