The Delhi High Court Today (Oct 25) remarked that it is “dangerous” how the Wikipedia functions as a platform, especially how anyone can edit the pages on the platform. Justice Subramonium Prasad made the remark after Wikipedia’s architecture was explained to the Court during the hearing of Asian News International (ANI)’s defamation suit against the online encyclopaedia.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the functionality of Wikipedia, emphasizing the “dangerous” potential of its open-edit platform, where “anyone can edit the pages.”
This remark was made by Justice Subramonium Prasad during a hearing on a defamation lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against the popular online encyclopedia.
The Court voiced its surprise upon learning about Wikipedia’s architecture, with Justice Prasad questioning,
“Anybody can edit a page on Wikipedia?”
Adding to this inquiry, the Court posed a reflective question:
“What kind of page is this if it is open to anybody?”
This brought to light the issue of potential misinformation or misuse of the platform.
Justice Prasad commented,
“Assume it is my name, anybody can abuse me on my page or give false information regarding me or attribute statements…”
-suggesting the risks associated with Wikipedia’s editability.
Wikipedia’s defense, represented by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, argued that users must abide by legal standards while creating or editing content on the platform. In response to the concerns, Justice Prasad noted, “Dangerous!” Wikipedia, however, defended its operational model, asserting that users are bound by internal policies and legal constraints.
Addressing Wikipedia’s credibility mechanisms, Mehta explained,
“Let’s begin at step zero. It is not like Facebook. It is not social media where you have a page and anybody can do anything. It is an encyclopedia where any user can add information if it’s worthy. The page is open to editable by anybody and that is how it gains credibility and every information is required to be cross-referenced to source.”
This case, brought forward by ANI, claims Wikipedia has allowed defamatory edits on its page, allegedly portraying ANI as a “propaganda tool” for the current Indian government. Currently, the page describes ANI as a mouthpiece of the Indian government, a statement ANI disputes as defamatory.
The Delhi High Court previously issued a summons to Wikipedia, demanding that it disclose the identities of three individuals responsible for these contentious edits on ANI’s page. However, this order was appealed by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the matter now awaits a ruling from a Division Bench.
Meanwhile, ANI continues to pursue the takedown of the disputed page, with arguments presented by Justice Prasad.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, argued that Wikipedia has become an avenue for continuous defamation against the agency. He stated,
“It is an aggregator of defamation,”
-criticizing Wikipedia for presenting defamatory information as factual content.
Senior Advocate Mehta, representing Wikipedia, reiterated that the platform differs fundamentally from social media, stating,
“Wikipedia is not like social media, it is like an encyclopedia. All information is cross-referenced.”
When questioned about whether individuals have the right to refuse a Wikipedia page about themselves, Mehta defended the encyclopedia’s approach, suggesting that Wikipedia’s role and handling of information should not be equated with those of social media.
ANI also argued that the Wikipedia page is subject to constant changes, with new defamatory content appearing over time. In defense, Mehta explained that ANI may misunderstand Wikipedia’s structural setup and editorial process.
“The references in the Wikipedia article have been in public domain for a number of years. It is not as simple as my friend puts it,”
-he stated, indicating a willingness to clarify Wikipedia’s operational nuances in a note for the Court.
Following the brief submissions, the Delhi High Court adjourned the case to October 28, noting that Wikipedia’s formal reply was not yet part of the official records.
The Court also directed both parties to submit a concise note by the evening to aid further proceedings.
PREVIOUSLY IN HC
The Delhi High Court on Monday (Oct 21), 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.”
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.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ANI vs Wikipedia
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
