The Delhi High Court will review articles from The Caravan and The Ken to determine interim relief in the defamation case filed by ANI against Wikipedia. ANI claims that Wikipedia permitted defamatory edits to its page on the platform. The court’s examination of these articles is crucial to the ongoing legal dispute. This case highlights concerns over content accuracy and accountability on online platforms.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court stated on Thursday that it would review the news articles that allegedly formed the basis for defamatory edits about Asian News International (ANI) on its Wikipedia page.
Justice Subramonium Prasad mentioned the articles published by The Caravan and The Ken regarding ANI’s operations as a news organization.
The Court remarked,
“I will also read the articles … to see whether the (edits) are borne out of the articles or not. Obviously, if they are not borne out of the articles, they cannot do it. Therefore, I can, to that extent, even ask them to take down those offending statements,”
The Court indicated that if it determines the edits can be justified by the articles, it may refrain from issuing a takedown order.
Read Also: BREAKING | ANI Vs Wikipedia| Delhi HC Issued Summons To User Who Make ‘Defamatory’ Edits
However, it questioned whether it should delve into such details at this interim stage.
The single-judge noted,
“This is an understanding of the editor of what the source means. If the understanding is so defamatory that it is relying on something which actually does not mean it at all, then the person can be restrained… again the question is even if it can be understood in that way, then would the court go deeper into that aspect to come to a conclusion as to whether in no circumstances can it be construed as that at all,”
Importantly, The Caravan and The Ken are not parties to ANI’s defamation lawsuit before the High Court. The suit alleges that Wikipedia has allowed defamatory edits on its page.
The Court also stated it would later assess whether Wikipedia acts solely as an intermediary or as a publisher, which would entail different legal implications. At this stage, the Court would focus on whether the content on ANI’s Wikipedia page infringes upon the free speech limitations outlined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The Court explained,
“The courts in the case of 19(1)(a) have said that injunction must be an exception and not the rule. Keeping that in mind, I have to then look into the question of irreparable loss, prima facie case, and balance of convenience,”
These comments were made while the single-judge reserved judgment on ANI’s request for interim relief. Concurrently, the Court expressed concerns about Wikipedia defending the actions of the users accused of making defamatory edits to ANI’s page.
Representing Wikipedia Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, responded,
“I have to defend my model of free speech. I am not on the merits of allegations,”
Advocate Sidhant Kumar represented ANI.
In July, the Court issued a summons to Wikipedia, ordering it to provide information about three individuals who made edits to ANI’s Wikipedia page. After ANI raised concerns about Wikipedia’s noncompliance with this directive, Justice Navin Chawla expressed strong disapproval and issued a notice for contempt of court.
The single-judge also mandated that an authorized representative of Wikipedia appear in court personally on October 25, when the contempt case scheduled to be heard. These directives were later contested by Wikipedia before the Division Bench, where both ANI and Wikipedia reached an agreement, allowing Wikipedia to notify the users while protecting their identities. Subsequently, Wikipedia served notices to the three users accused of defamation by ANI.
Case Title
ANI Media Private Limited vs. Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors