[ANI vs Wikipedia] “Nothing Worse Than Calling News Agency A Govt Minion Or Agent Of Intelligence Agency”: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Today (Oct 21) observed that nothing can be worse than calling a news agency a stooge of the government or an agent of an intelligence agency. Bench made the remark while hearing Wikipedia’s appeal against a single-judge’s order directing it to disclose the identity of users who have allegedly included defamatory statements on ANI’s Wiki page. The Court observed that ANI’s suit discloses very serious allegations of defamation.The Court also praised Wikipedia for serving the public and said it has been a huge service to mankind.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday, stated that nothing could be more damaging than calling a news agency a “stooge of the government” or an “agent of an intelligence agency.“

This remark was made by a Bench consisting of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela during the hearing of Wikipedia’s appeal against a previous single-judge order. The order had directed Wikipedia to reveal the identities of users who allegedly posted defamatory content on ANI’s Wikipedia page.

The Court emphasized the gravity of the allegations, describing them as very serious and defamatory in nature.

“We asked you, put your client in the same place as the respondent stands before us. You would have to admit before us that they are per se scandalous, defamatory, if not proven to be true. You are accusing someone of being a puppet of a central intelligence agency. I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes,”

-Justice Manmohan told the counsel representing Wikipedia.

The Court further illustrated the severity of such claims by referencing political history, noting,

“Biggest abuse in Parliament used to be that this opposition party leader is a CIA agent. When these allegations are made, these are serious…You will say you are an intermediary, I have done nothing. Who will defend these statements?”

In discussing ANI’s lawsuit, the Court reiterated its concern that the case could not move forward without Wikipedia disclosing the user information.

“Otherwise, he [ANI] will be remediless. One is saying you defend the matter, one is not saying your defence is struck off…If you (Wikipedia) don’t disclose the name of the author, you take the defence of the intermediary, it will all become a cloak to hide behind the veil of anonymity and to ensure that the case does not proceed.”

However, the Court balanced its remarks by commending Wikipedia for its broader contributions to society, stating,

“Your client is doing some amazing work, providing open source encyclopaedia.”

This positive acknowledgment contrasted with earlier hearings where the Court had sharply criticized Wikipedia’s resistance to disclosing user identities.

The question of disclosure in sealed covers was also brought up during the hearing. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, argued that in previous cases, the Court had ordered disclosures in sealed covers.

“Many such orders are in the first instance …in the sealed cover and it is thereafter the Ld. Single Judge passes a direction for disclosure often with certain caveats on confidentiality and so and on,”

-he said.

The Court then inquired whether this argument had been made before the single judge, adding,

“The Ld. Judge is very, very cautious in issuing notice on day one, asking for a reply. When the reply does not come, no argument advanced before him that this must not be done.”

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, appearing on behalf of ANI, assured the Court that any disclosed information would be used solely for serving summons.

“I will not disclose it to any third party as far as information of defendants is concerned. I am not interested in either vilifying or in any manner causing any harm, except to pursue my remedy,”

-Kumar stated.

Sibal, on the other hand, referred to legal precedents, arguing that a “prima facie test” must be satisfied before issuing an order of disclosure. He admitted a lapse in addressing this in previous affidavits but contended,

“Yes, there may have been delay in filing the affidavit…I may not have addressed all this, but still that lapse on my part should not blow the cover right away on the people whose identity is being disclosed.”

The Court, however, urged Wikipedia to consider ANI’s assurance.

In response, Sibal said he had already received instructions that a sealed cover approach for the information could be an acceptable option. He expressed concern, saying,

“Once the identity is disclosed, nobody can control anything,”

-referring to ANI’s undertaking.

Justice Manmohan suggested forming a “confidentiality club” if there were concerns about reprisals against Wikipedia users.

“Then confidentiality club can be created, it can be only between the two counsel. It will not be between anyone else,”

-the judge said.

Sibal indicated he would seek further instructions, particularly about the feasibility of protecting user identities through the confidentiality club.

He stated-

“I will put it to them. I don’t know whether they would want to take on the responsibility of service every time, because it is not one case. The issue is the precedent, that will become precedent that we will have to undertake service.”

The next hearing of the case scheduled for October 28, with the Court directing both sides to submit their brief notes before the hearing.

Wikipedia takes down page on ongoing case.

In an earlier development, the Court had directed Wikipedia to take down a page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation,’ which had been published regarding the ongoing case. ANI had filed a contempt of court application after claiming the order was not complied with.

However, the page has since been removed, and the Court closed the contempt proceedings.

CASE TITLE:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ANI vs Wikipedia

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES