The Delhi High Court Today (July 9th) issued summons to Wikipedia on a suit filed by news agency ANI alleging that the widely-popular online encyclopaedia was allowing defamatory edits to their page on the platform. The Court issued notice on ANI’s interim relief plea as well and listed the matter for further hearing on August 20.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued summons to Wikipedia in response to a lawsuit filed by news agency ANI.
ANI alleges that Wikipedia has allowed defamatory edits to its page on the platform.
Justice Navin Chawla issued a notice concerning ANI’s request for interim relief and scheduled the next hearing for August 20.
The contentious Wikipedia page on ANI claims that
“the news agency 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.”
ANI argues that this description is defamatory and that Wikipedia is not allowing edits to their page.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, contended that Wikipedia was selectively allowing edits on ANI’s page.
“They have closed my (ANI’s) page for editing by anyone and can only be edited through their representatives,”
-he stated.
At this stage, the Court remarked,
“At the end of day they are entitled to have their opinion whether they have backing of facts or not will be seen.”
Following this, the Court issued notice to Wikipedia.
Specific Objections by ANI
ANI has raised objections to several descriptions on its Wikipedia page, including:
- “The news agency 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.”
- “Under a new management, ANI has been accused of practicing an aggressive model of journalism focused at maximum revenue output, where journalists were easily dispensable with. Multiple employees have accused ANI of not having any human resource management system and ill-treating their ex-employees.”
- “In 2020, an investigation by EU DisinfoLab concluded that ANI had on multiple occasions published mostly anti-Pakistan and sometimes anti-China opinion pieces and news content, including opinion pieces falsely attributed to European politicians and other instances of disinformation, and that this material was known to have been sourced from a vast network of pro-India fake news websites run by a certain ‘Srivasta Group’. The report noted that mainstream Indian news media regularly relies on content provided by ANI, and that ANI had on several occasions provided legitimacy and coverage to the entire ‘influence operation’ run by the fake news network, which relied ‘more on ANI than on any other distribution channel’ [to give it] ‘both credibility and a wide reach to its content’. A primary aim of this fake news coverage was to ‘discredit Pakistan’ in international forums. ANI is also believed to have played significant roles as allies of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency; many of its videos depicted protests by fringe lobby groups and activists, on the aspects of human rights abuse in Pakistan.”
- “ANI has been also accused of misreporting events, by checkers certified by the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). The Caravan came across several video footages from ANI, wherein logos of random television channels from Pakistan along with Urdu tickers were superimposed on news showcasing India in a positive light; their video editors have admitted to forging clips.”
- “On 20 July 2023, ANI falsely blamed Muslims for the sexual assault and rape of two Kuki women during the 2023 Manipur violence.”
ANI maintains that these edits are false and misleading.
“This malicious conduct of the Defendants ex-facie establishes their ulterior motives of defaming Plaintiff by publishing false and misleading content against Plaintiff,”
-the agency argued.
ANI’s Claims of Defamation
ANI claims that the actions of Wikipedia and its representatives have
“tarnished the Plaintiff’s long-standing reputation amongst its industry and the general public at large but also subjected it to harassment from the public and its associates from across the globe.”
ANI further argued that the protection status accorded to its Wikipedia page allows for the dissemination of false and defamatory content without the ability to modify or edit the same, thus necessitating urgent intervention by the Court.
“The acts of Defendant Nos. 1-4 have not only tarnished the Plaintiff’s long-standing reputation amongst its industry and the general public at large but also subjected it to harassment from the public and its associates from across the globe. Further, such damage continues to be inflicted by virtue of the protection status according to the ANI Page, allowing one to access the false and defamatory content without the ability to modify or edit the same, thereby necessitating urgent intervention by this Hon’ble Court,”
-ANI added.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ANI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
