The Delhi High Court has questioned Wikipedia’s neutrality, directing the removal of allegedly defamatory content from ANI’s Wikipedia page.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has raised significant concerns regarding the neutrality of Wikipedia’s content, particularly in relation to the Wikipedia page of Asian News International (ANI). The court observed that the page did not appear to be authored from an impartial standpoint and directed Wikipedia to remove allegedly defamatory statements published about ANI.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, who presided over the matter, emphasized that Wikipedia’s editorial policies require content to be written from a neutral perspective, free from bias.
The court questioned whether these policies were adhered to in the case of ANI’s Wikipedia page and expressed doubts about the reliability of the sources used to support the contested statements.
“It appears that the statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pieces. Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia), which professes to be an encyclopedia with a strict neutrality policy, must ensure that the opinions reflected on its platform are actually grounded in the source articles. This is necessary to uphold the integrity of its neutral policy,”
the court stated.
The ruling highlights the increasing judicial scrutiny over digital platforms that host user-generated content, particularly when such content has the potential to harm the reputation of individuals and organizations.
The High Court’s stance reflects growing concerns about the influence of online encyclopedias in shaping public perception and their responsibility in preventing the spread of misinformation.
Wikipedia Cannot Evade Responsibility as an Intermediary
The High Court firmly rejected Wikipedia’s defense that it merely serves as an intermediary and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for user-generated content. The court underscored that, given Wikipedia’s status as a widely trusted source of information, it bears a heightened duty to prevent the dissemination of defamatory material.
“Wikipedia cannot completely absolve itself of responsibility by claiming that it is only an intermediary. Since it presents itself as an encyclopedia, people at large tend to accept the statements on its web pages as absolute truth. Consequently, the responsibility of Wikipedia is significantly higher,”
the court remarked.
The judgment is particularly notable as it highlights the evolving legal landscape regarding digital platforms’ liabilities. The ruling aligns with global discussions on whether platforms such as Wikipedia, which rely on crowd-sourced content, should be given a greater duty to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of the information they host.
ANI’s Complaint Against Wikipedia
ANI had filed a suit against Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia’s parent entity), alleging that its Wikipedia page contained defamatory edits, including references suggesting that the news agency functioned as a “propaganda tool” for the Indian government. ANI contended that these statements were misleading, misrepresented the cited sources, and created an unfair negative perception about the news agency.
The court, after reviewing the source articles, determined that the statements on Wikipedia’s ANI page were not direct reproductions of the cited material. Instead, they had been framed in a manner that distorted the intended meaning of the original articles.
The court found that some of the information presented on the ANI page lacked appropriate context and had been selectively highlighted in a way that misrepresented ANI’s role and credibility as a news agency.
“Upon perusal of the articles cited by Defendants No. 2 to 4 (the individuals who made the edits), this court finds that the impugned statements do not faithfully reflect the content of the sources. These statements have been framed in a manner that contradicts the intent of the original articles and are devoid of their proper context,”
the court noted.
As a result, the court concluded that the statements in question were prima facie defamatory and had the effect of tarnishing ANI’s professional reputation.
Court’s Observations on Wikipedia’s Editing Restrictions
A significant concern raised by ANI was that it was unable to directly counter or edit the allegedly defamatory content due to Wikipedia’s editing restrictions. Wikipedia follows a policy where certain pages, particularly those considered controversial, can be edited only by experienced or authorized users. This meant that ANI had limited ability to correct what it claimed were misleading statements.
The court acknowledged ANI’s disadvantage and noted that Wikipedia’s policies, while designed to prevent vandalism and misinformation, might also create situations where affected parties are unable to challenge defamatory content in a timely manner.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Frees Pune Man in 498A Case: “Demanding Food on Silver Plate Not Dowry”
Legal Proceedings and Court Directives
This case has been the subject of multiple court proceedings. In July 2024, the Delhi High Court issued summons to Wikipedia, instructing it to disclose details of the three users responsible for making the contentious edits. However, ANI later complained that Wikipedia had failed to comply with this directive, prompting the court to take a stern stance.
Following this, the court issued a contempt notice against Wikipedia and directed an authorized representative of Wikipedia to be personally present in court on October 25, 2024. Wikipedia subsequently appealed this directive before a Division Bench, where an agreement was reached between the parties. As per the agreement, Wikipedia agreed to serve notices to the users who had made the edits, while safeguarding their identities.
Additionally, the Division Bench criticized Wikipedia for hosting a separate page titled
“Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation”
which chronicled details of the ongoing legal dispute. The court ordered Wikipedia to remove this page, a directive that the platform complied with. However, Wikipedia later challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which is set to hear the matter on April 4, 2025.
The outcome of this case may set a precedent regarding the obligations of digital platforms in ensuring neutrality and preventing defamatory content. As courts around the world grapple with issues related to online content moderation, the Delhi High Court’s ruling could influence future legal approaches to regulating digital intermediaries.
Legal Representation:
ANI was represented by advocates Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra, Akshit Mago, and Anshika Saxena. Wikipedia’s legal team included Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta along with advocates Nikhil Narendran, Tine Abraham, Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Abhijnan Jha, Shivani Rawat, Thomas J Vallianeth, Aayush Marwah, Shubhangni Jain, Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Bakhshind Singh, Pranav Tomar, Jasleen Virk, and Diva Saigal.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on Wikipedia’s challenge to the removal of the
“Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation” page, the case is likely to set a precedent regarding the obligations of digital platforms in ensuring neutrality and preventing defamatory content.
READ MORE REPORTS ON DELHI HIGH COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE