On 19 December 2024, the Delhi High Court announced it would review the news articles that form the basis of the allegedly defamatory edits made to the Wikipedia page of Asian News International (ANI). The defamation suit, ANI Media Private Limited vs. Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors, concerns edits that ANI claims are defamatory and were published on the online encyclopedia.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, during the hearing, referred to the articles from The Caravan and The Ken about ANI’s functioning as a news organization. He said, “I will also read the articles … to see whether the (edits) are borne out of the articles or not. Obviously, if they are not borne out of the articles, they cannot do it. Therefore, I can, to that extent, even ask them to take down those offending statements.”
The court noted that if it finds the edits are based on articles in a way that could be reasonably inferred, it may not pass an order to remove the content. However, Justice Prasad questioned whether it could delve into such details at the interim stage of the case.
“This is an understanding of the editor of what the source means. If the understanding is so defamatory that it is relying on something which actually does not mean it at all, then the person can be restrained… again the question is even if it can be understood in that way, then would the court go deeper into that aspect to come to a conclusion as to whether in no circumstances can it be construed it as that at all,” the judge remarked.
It is important to note that The Caravan and The Ken are not parties to the defamation suit before the High Court.
The suit alleges that Wikipedia is allowing defamatory content to remain on ANI’s Wikipedia page. The court also indicated that it would later examine whether Wikipedia is merely an intermediary or a publisher, which would subject it to different legal rules.
At this stage, the court clarified it would focus on whether the content on ANI’s Wikipedia page violates the free speech restrictions under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. “The courts in case of 19(1)(a) have said that injunction must be exception and not the rule. Keeping that in mind, I have to then look into the question of irreparable loss, prima facie case and balance of convenience,” the court explained.
Justice Prasad made these comments while reserving the decision on ANI’s application for interim relief.
The court also questioned Wikipedia for defending the actions of the users accused of making the defamatory edits on ANI’s page. In response, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Wikipedia, stated, “I have to defend my model of free speech. I am not on merits of allegations.”
Advocate Sidhant Kumar represented ANI in the case.
In July, the court issued a summons to Wikipedia and ordered it to disclose the identities of three individuals who made the disputed edits to ANI’s page. However, ANI later complained that Wikipedia had not complied with this directive. In response, single-judge Justice Navin Chawla took strong exception to Wikipedia’s conduct and issued a notice for contempt of court. The court also ordered an authorized representative of Wikipedia to personally appear in court on 25 October 2024, when the contempt case was listed.
These directives were challenged by Wikipedia before the Division Bench. However, both ANI and Wikipedia reached an agreement, with Wikipedia agreeing to serve notice on the users, thereby protecting their identities. Wikipedia then served notices to the three users accused of defamation by ANI.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.