Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge Direction Asking Wikipedia To Remove 'Defamatory' Content On ANI

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld a single judge direction asking Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, to take down allegedly defamatory content and description of news agency ANI Media Private Limited.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however stayed the direction on Wikipedia to remove the protection status imposed on the ANI page.

It further stayed the direction seeking to restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for Wikipedia. Advocate Siddhant Kumar appeared for ANI.

The division bench observed that the single judge had given detailed reasoning as to the defamatory nature of the impugned content and legal position of defamation suit.

“This court is of the opinion that until the appeal is finally heard, the relief granted is restricted to the first part of prayer b of the injunction. The remaining injunction of prayer c and later part of prayer b is stayed,” the division bench ordered.

Furthermore, it ordered that whenever ANI writes an email to Wikipedia regarding any further allegedly defamatory content on its page, Wikipedia would be liable to follow the IT Rules and if such a content is not taken down within 36 hours, ANI can approach the Court by filing a fresh application.

“During the pendency of the suit it is seen that the content on wikipedia page is not static. The nature of the platform itself is such that content is continuously dynamic. There is possibility that content could be changing on a daily basis. The injunction would operate in a manner that platform would take down whatever content would be violative of the injunction. If any other content comes to notice of plaintiff, same shall be brought to notice of platform through counsel,” the Court said.

The Bench also said that Wikipedia is nothing but an online encyclopedia and in cases of such online encyclopaedias, the intention of the publisher ought to be to take a neutral stance. 

“The clear stand of wikipedia is that it is an intermediary. Wikipedia stand is also buttressed by further pleading that other defendants (administrator in the suit) are independent third party volunteers who have contributed on ANI wikipedia page. Since wikipedia claims to be intermediary, in terms of IT Rules, the intermediary has a obligation to make efforts not to publish any objectionable content,” the Court said.

It added that if there is any content on wikipedia website which a person whose information it professes to publish is false and untrue, on receipt of court order, within 36 hours, the intermediary is obliged to take down the said content. The single judge heard the parties and had given a prima facie opinion that content is defamatory, the Bench noted.