The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ordered the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, to take down the page carrying information about the ongoing defamation suit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against the online platform.
The Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed Wikipedia to comply with the order within 36 hours.
Appearing for ANI, Advocate Sidhanth Kumar apprised the Bench about a public poll created for the page related to the ongoing defamation case, soliciting public opinion. He highlighted that a page titled “Talk: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation” hosted a public discussion, despite the court’s prior admonition to Wikimedia for attempting to influence the single-judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla.
The Bench then suggested ANI to apply for a dynamic injunction regarding all allegedly defamatory pages on Wikipedia regarding opinions about Indian courts or the Supreme Court, observing that Indian courts had enough strategies to deal with all kinds of situations.
Appearing for Wikipedia, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal expressed willingness to comply with any order. However, he pointed out the potential danger of setting a precedent without a proper legal assessment.
Noting that the ongoing public discussions could affect judicial proceedings, the Bench directed immediate removal of the contested page. It said the page would have to go, otherwise, the judges would never be able to decide the case.
Stating that Wikipedia was not above the law, the Bench said that no client ever claimed that they were above the law, however, their actions did confirm the same.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 21, 2024.
Earlier on October 14, the Bench came down heavily on the online platform for not disclosing the subscriber details of three individuals who edited a page dedicated to ANI on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia carried a page on its platform titled “Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation,” which read “The judge in the case has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.”
Expressing its displeasure over Wikipedia’s ‘attempt’ to ‘threaten’ the single-judge Bench of Navin Chawla, the High Court had summoned the Administrator of Wikipedia India in the matter.
Noting that the single judge could not be put under fear or threat, the Division Bench had ordered Wikipedia to take down the page in question, warning that in case the online platform did not wish to do so, the Court would not hear this petition.
The High Court further directed the single-judge Bench not to hear Wikipedia’s advocate on record, observing that Wikipedia may be a powerful global entity, but India was a country governed by law and the citizens took pride in that.
The Division Bench made the remarks after Advocate Siddhant Kumar apprised the Court about the Wikipedia page and a press statement given to The Hindu newspaper on July 12 about the pending defamation case.
The Bench observed that the petitioner could neither interfere with a sub-judice proceedings, nor put the fear of God in the single judge.
Sibal submitted that the matter involved two competing interests- legal wrongs have to be addressed, as well as concerns of privacy, anonymity and freedom of speech.
Noting that Wikipedia was a service provider, the High Court said that the platform ran the risk of Section 79, its safe harbour, being waved, in case it was taking this stand. The filing of this appeal itself meant there was a waiver, it noted.
Sibal then mentioned international law and various precedents worldwide on the test adopted by Courts to direct the disclosure of information.
He submitted that no prima facie view was taken by the single-judge Bench while passing the impugned order. No injunction was granted, added Sibal, apprising the Court that Wikipedia would file its reply in the defamation suit by this week.
Sibal said Wikipedia functioned on anonymity, which was its backbone. However, the High Court orally remarked that the platform’s system could not be a cloak to defame someone.
It said in case the allegations were incorrect, they were scandalous to the core. If they were correct, they must be defended. The person must come forward and show courage to defend it.
The Division Bench further expressed its displeasure over the platform for visually accusing a journalist of being a state-sponsored agent, and an agent of the R&W.
Warning the petitioner, the High Court said it would record that the petitioner’s protection under Section 79 has been blown up.
Wikipedia created an infrastructure whereby anonymity was protected and where people could rely on some material, which they did not have to defend.
If a person placed reliance on a false report, Wikipedia was not allowing that person to put his defense forward because the platform was not disclosing the details of these three subscribers, noted the High Court.
Sibal contended that the individuals who made the edits, were administrators, and not employees or agents of Wikipedia.
The bench the remarked that the system could not be a cloak to defame someone. It said the fact that Wikipedia chose to defend the defendants 2-4 confirmed that the act was done at the platform’s behest. The architecture given to the Court was devised by the petitioner. Wikipedia appeared to be something more than an intermediary, which could not be allowed, it added.
The Division Bench said the petitioner could not get away by saying someone was an Indian agent and doing an anti-ISI activity. The platform hoped to get away with it under a wall of privacy. The High Court further expressed its amazement over the platform objecting to the disclosure and listed the matter for further hearing on October 25.
It noted that there is a ‘ring’ of truth in Kumar’s statement that Wikipedia’s counsel did not object to the direction of disclosure before the single judge.
The matter pertained to a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikipedia over allegedly defamatory descriptions of the news agency.
Wikipedia’s page alleged that ANI had been ‘criticised’ for having served as a ‘propaganda tool’ for the current dispensation, ‘distributing materials’ from a vast network of ‘fake news websites,’ and ‘misreporting’ events.
In its defamation suit, the news agency sought to restrain Wikipedia from publishing allegedly defamatory content on ANI’s page on its platform. It further sought removal of the content, as well as Rs 2 crore as damages from Wikipedia.
ANI alleged that Wikipedia and its officials allegedly published palpably false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency’s reputation and to discredit its goodwill.
On August 20, the single-judge Bench of the High Court directed Wikipedia to disclose to ANI the subscriber details of the three individuals available with it within two weeks.
ANI had filed a contempt plea against Wikipedia alleging non-compliance of the order in question.