ANI had filed a suit claiming that Wikipedia allowed anonymous users to make defamatory and false statements about the news agency. The case was directed against the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent body of Wikipedia.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday cancelled the Delhi High Court’s orders that had directed the takedown of certain allegedly defamatory edits on the Wikipedia page of Asian News International (ANI).
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and allowed ANI to approach the Delhi High Court’s single-judge bench again to seek fresh interim relief related to its complaint against Wikipedia.
ANI had filed a suit claiming that Wikipedia allowed anonymous users to make defamatory and false statements about the news agency. The case was directed against the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent body of Wikipedia.
On April 2, 2024, a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court had ordered the takedown of such alleged defamatory content. Later, on April 8, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the same order. These decisions were challenged by the Wikimedia Foundation before the Supreme Court.
While hearing the appeal, Justice Oka’s bench raised strong concerns about the vagueness of the takedown orders issued by the High Court.
The bench said, “Who will decide which is false, which is defamatory?”, highlighting that the orders lacked clarity and could not be practically enforced.
It further added, “On first principles injunction should be granted in such a manner that it is capable to be implemented. Please see directions of Ld. Single Judge. Prayer B and C. Prayer B ‘remove all false…’ Who will decide what is false?”
The counsel representing ANI suggested that the statements listed in the amended plaint could be considered. But the Court was not convinced and found the reliefs sought too broadly framed.
The bench told ANI’s lawyer, “The problem is you don’t pray for proper relief before the single judge. Let both the orders for. Go and pray for fresh interim relief confine yourself to specific portions that they have put on their website.”
It added, “Such a broad interim relief is not capable of being specifically implemented. The reason is that there is no clarity on the issue on who will decide whether the contents are false, misleading and defamatory.”
After hearing both sides, the Court issued this direction:
“Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and grant liberty to make a fresh application before the Ld. Single judge for grant of appropriate interim injunction in respect of specific contents appearing at the site of the respondent. If such application is made, it will be it considered on merits without being influenced by this order of the Court.”
The Supreme Court’s key message was that injunctions must be clear, specific, and enforceable. Generalised takedown orders are difficult to apply, especially on platforms like Wikipedia where content is crowdsourced.
The Supreme Court has also reserved its decision on another appeal by Wikimedia Foundation challenging a Delhi High Court order that directed the complete removal of a Wikipedia page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation’.
This page had references calling ANI a “propaganda tool” of the present Central government, which ANI claims is defamatory. Wikipedia opposed the High Court’s direction and declined to publicly disclose the identities of the editors who made those statements. Instead, Wikipedia served private notices to those editors.
The Delhi High Court had earlier summoned Wikipedia on July 9, 2024, and directed it to share the names of the editors responsible for the controversial edits. Wikimedia resisted this move, citing user privacy.
BACKGROUND
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.
Case Title – Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.
