Read Time: 08 minutes
During the hearing, the bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta examined the Wikipedia page in question and remarked that the content appeared to be “too strongly opinionated”. The court questioned the neutrality of the content, emphasizing that Wikipedia, being perceived as an online encyclopedia, must maintain a neutral stance and avoid taking sides.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, in an appeal filed by the Wikimedia Foundation challenging an order, questioned whether Wikimedia had complied with the earlier order and raised concerns about its editorial responsibility as an online platform. The impugned order, passed by Justice Subramonium Prasad, noted that 'the impugned statements are ex-facie defamatory and tarnishes the professional reputation of the Plaintiff”.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Wikimedia, argued that the foundation functioned only as an intermediary and had no control over user-generated content. The court also examined the nature of the content in question and discussed the obligations of intermediaries under IT Rules, 2021.
The dispute centered around allegedly defamatory statements published on Wikipedia’s page about ANI. ANI argued that the page contained multiple factually incorrect and defamatory comments that had been deliberately posted to malign the organization.
Senior Advocate Sibal argued that Wikimedia functioned merely as an intermediary, providing the platform on which users published content. He stated that the platform was self-regulated and dynamic, and Wikimedia did not exercise editorial control over the pages. He clarified that different categories of users, including administrators, were responsible for managing content, and they did not act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The court questioned “can an organization say 'I don't want a page on wikipedia'?”. In response, Senior Advocate Sibal contended that such a prohibition would amount to curtailing public speech. He added that ANI’s suit, filed in 2024, related to content that had been on the page since 2019, and there had been an unreasonable delay in initiating legal proceedings.
The bench also questioned the broad nature of the injunction granted by the Single Judge and sought to identify which specific portions of the content were defamatory. Senior Advocate Sibal highlighted that no such identification had been made in the order. He stressed that under the IT Rules, 2021, intermediaries were only required to comply with court directions but could not be held liable for user-generated content unless duly notified.
“The minute any company is an intermediary under the IT Rules 2021, the job is to give effect to the directions of the court. You cannot even argue on merits”, the court opined.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, appearing for ANI, submitted that under the IT Rules, 2021, an intermediary had a positive obligation to take down misleading or deceptive content within 36 hours of receiving a court order. He argued that Wikimedia had failed to fulfill this obligation.
The court acknowledged that Wikipedia’s model posed certain complexities, especially in light of its perception as a neutral information platform. It remarked that the content published on such a platform could significantly impact public perception. The court suggested two possible courses of action: either Wikimedia sit with ANI to revise the content collaboratively or restrict the scope of the injunction to specific parts of the content. However, Senior Advocate Sibal refused the first option.
“If you were an intermediary, your answer to sit down and remove defamatory content, would have been yes”, the court remarked.
In its dictated order, the court observed that while the Single Judge had provided detailed reasoning regarding the allegedly defamatory nature of the content, there remained legal questions regarding Wikimedia’s status as an intermediary and its obligations under the law. The bench took note of Wikimedia’s argument that it had no editorial role in creating the ANI page and that the authors were independent users.
The court stated that under the 2021 IT Rules, intermediaries must act within 36 hours of a court order to remove defamatory content. It also noted that the written statement filed by Wikimedia had not yet been placed on record, and the application for the condonation of delay was still pending.
Considering these submissions, the court issued an interim direction restricting the appellant to the first part of Prayer B and listed the matter for further hearing on July 16, 2025.
For Wikimedia: Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal For ANI: Advocates Sidhant KumarCase Title: Wikimedia Foundation v ANI Media Pvt Ltd (FAO(OS)-41/2025)
Please Login or Register
