The Delhi High Court reprimanded Wikipedia for not disclosing the identities of users involved in allegedly defamatory edits about Asian News International (ANI). The court warned that withholding information jeopardizes Wikipedia’s intermediary protection under Indian law and criticized its stance, suggesting that failure to comply could harm its operations in India.
New Delhi: Today, on October 14th, the Delhi High Court questioned Wikipedia’s refusal to disclose the identities of users who allegedly made defamatory edits on Asian News International (ANI)’s Wikipedia page, highlighting the serious implications of the case. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made it clear that Wikipedia risks losing its intermediary protection under the Information Technology (IT) Act if it continues to withhold such information.
“You are the service provider, you run some risk of your protection, safe harbour being waived,” Justice Manmohan stated, implying that Wikipedia’s intermediary status could be jeopardized if it defends such actions.
The High Court took a strong stance against the platform, asserting that the case raised serious allegations of defamation. The Court indicated that it may soon record a finding that the legal tests for ordering the disclosure of user identities have been met.
Read Also: Delhi Police Achieve Landmark | First Conviction Under BNS
“The system (of Wikipedia) cannot be a cloak to defame someone,” the Court remarked, indicating its dissatisfaction with Wikipedia’s stand. The Bench further suggested that Wikipedia’s vehemence in defending the users raises suspicions about the platform’s neutrality, stating,
“Your vehemence is showing… you are something more than an intermediary.”
The Court also criticized Wikipedia for allowing a page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation’ to be published on its site, detailing the ongoing legal proceedings. The Bench found this troubling and expressed its dismay that the platform believed itself to be “beyond the ambit of law.”
“What we are finding is extremely disturbing that you think you are beyond the ambit of law. Look at the page. You are disclosing something about a sub-judice matter,”
the Court said, warning Wikipedia to seek instructions in this regard. The case was adjourned for further hearing on Wednesday.
The case originated from a defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikipedia, alleging that the platform allowed defamatory edits referring to the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current Union government. In response, the Delhi High Court issued summons to Wikipedia, ordering the platform to disclose information about the users who made the edits.
However, Wikipedia appealed this order, arguing that the platform functions on the principle of anonymity and that revealing user identities could have serious consequences. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, stressed,
“I have legitimate interest in protecting the anonymity and I want to be heard on this aspect.”
Despite Wikipedia’s concerns about privacy and freedom of speech, the Court maintained that without disclosing the identities, it would be impossible to serve a defamation suit against the users who made the edits. Justice Manmohan warned that by filing an appeal and opposing the disclosure, Wikipedia could be putting its safe harbour protection at risk under Indian law.
“Filing of appeal itself means that [you are waiving legal protection],”
Justice Manmohan said, underscoring the Court’s serious stance on the matter.
ANI’s counsel, Advocate Sidhant Kumar, defended the earlier single-judge order, pointing out that Wikipedia had not filed any pleading in that Court. Kumar also accused the platform of justifying the defamatory content as “fair comment” and alleged that Wikipedia had an agenda against ANI.
In response to these allegations, the Court harshly criticized Wikipedia’s handling of the case, cautioning the platform about potential legal consequences if it does not comply with the court’s orders.
“You may be backed by the world’s most powerful power, but I think we live in a country which is governed by the rule of law and we take pride in that,”
Justice Manmohan remarked.
The future of Wikipedia’s operations in India may depend on the platform’s compliance with the Court’s rulings, as the High Court warned of possible actions, including blocking Wikipedia’s business transactions in India if it continues to defy court orders.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES