Today, On 8th April, The Delhi High Court ruled that Wikipedia, as an intermediary platform, cannot challenge court-ordered takedowns on the merits of the content. The judgment came in a case involving news agency ANI. The Court also criticized Wikipedia for lacking neutrality in its article about ANI, stating that encyclopaedias are expected to remain unbiased. The platform was directed to comply with the takedown order.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court criticized Wikipedia on Tuesday for its “opinionated” and “non-neutral” page that labeled Asian News International (ANI) as a “propaganda tool” for the Central government.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta remarked that Wikipedia is viewed as an encyclopedia and should maintain neutrality rather than resemble an online blog.
The Court stated,
“Let’s be honest, we all refer to Wikipedia. I recall very clearly that when children are in high school, you can look at Wikipedia and teach children about it… The word ‘pedia’ comes from encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia has to be very neutral. Wikipedia is doing a great service that way… If you start taking sides like this, then it becomes like any other blog,”
The bench further indicated that if Wikipedia claims to be an intermediary, it cannot contest a court’s decision on the merits of the case.
The Court emphasized,
“You have already pleaded you are an intermediary. Under IT Rules, their job is only to give effect to what the court of law directs. You cannot defend it on merits. If you are an intermediary and the court directs you to take down, you cannot even argue on merits,”
However, the Court made slight modifications to the April 2 order from a single-judge, which instructed ANI to remove defamatory content against it and prevent further publication of similar material.
The Division Bench stated that while Wikipedia must remove the defamatory content, ANI can notify the platform if similar content reappears, prompting Wikipedia to take action.
Regarding the single-judge’s order to remove the protection status from ANI’s page allegedly hindering edits the Division Bench decided to stay this directive. This ruling was issued in response to Wikipedia’s appeal against the single-judge’s decision.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal represented Wikipedia and contended that the single-judge’s order was based on the incorrect assumption that the content about ANI was published in 2024. He noted that the ANI page had remained unchanged since 2019 and that the contributors to the page are not employed or compensated by Wikipedia. Sibal further argued that the injunction was excessively broad.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, stated that he would not oppose reverting the ANI page to its state prior to February 26, 2019, when edits were made. Kumar asserted that Wikipedia had not complied with the court’s order or the IT Rules, which require them to remove content within 36 hours.
He also pointed out that Wikipedia itself claims to have the authority to modify content, which undermines its position as an intermediary.
Wikipedia has appealed the order issued by Justice Subramonium Prasad, who found ANI’s page in violation of Wikipedia’s policies and noted that the content was not neutral.
The Court stated,
“It appears that the statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff are all sourced from articles which are 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 the neutral policy of Defendant No.1 is not violated,”
The Court added that Wikipedia cannot simply absolve itself of responsibility for content uploaded to its platform by claiming it is merely an intermediary.
The Court asserted,
“Wikipedia has a duty to prevent defamation on its platform”
The Court concluded,
“Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia), therefore, cannot completely wash its hands of the contents of the article on the ground that it is only an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statements that are published on its platform,”
In July 2024, the single-judge of the High Court had summoned Wikipedia and ordered it to disclose information about three individuals who edited ANI’s Wikipedia page. Following ANI’s complaint about Wikipedia’s non-compliance with this directive, the single-judge expressed strong disapproval and issued a notice for contempt of court.
Wikipedia subsequently appealed to the Division Bench. The single-judge also mandated that a representative from Wikipedia appear in court on October 25.
These directives were contested by Wikipedia before the Division Bench, where both ANI and Wikipedia reached a settlement. Under this agreement, Wikipedia consented to notify the users who made the edits while protecting their identities. Wikipedia then issued notices to the three users accused of making defamatory edits that harmed ANI’s reputation.
Notably, the Division Bench also criticized Wikipedia for hosting a page titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation,” related to the High Court case, and ordered its removal. The appeal against this order is pending in the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar ceased to hear the matter after the former recused himself from the case.
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors vs. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
