Read Time: 08 minutes
ANI Media had filed a suit against Wikimedia Pvt. Ltd. (Wikipedia) over defamatory content published about ANI. The Single Judge Bench had directed Wikipedia to disclose the name of the author. Wikipedia then approached the Division Bench challenging the disclosure order. However, the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to a Wikipedia page detailing the ongoing defamation suit, which was deemed as an attempt to influence the Single Judge. Therefore, the Division Bench had directed for removal of the said page within 36 hours.
On October 21, the Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition concerning the ongoing defamation case, in which Wikipedia was directed to remove a page titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation”.
Advocate Sidhanth Kumar, appearing on behalf of ANI, informed the court that the page was removed only at 3 AM on October 21, even though the orders, issued on October 16, required compliance within 36 hours.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held, “If you sit in this court, you will realize orders are only complied with an hour or two before the hearing. It is nothing unusual. That’s unfortunately the norm, everyone does it at the pain of contempt”.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, argued that the appeal was focused on a fundamental legal principle. He asserted that an order for disclosure, even against an intermediary, should be issued only after a proper legal assessment, given the presence of competing interests.
Referring to prior cases where similar orders were issued, Senior Advocate Sibal highlighted two key elements: (a) a prima facie view followed by an injunction, and (b) in certain instances, an initial order in a sealed cover, with a subsequent disclosure order.
The court, however, noted that the single judge had not issued an ex-parte order but had instead issued notice. The court pointed out that Wikipedia did not respond, and none of the arguments currently presented were raised before the single judge. It emphasized that the single judge had exercised caution, allowed time, and only issued the order when no reply was filed.
The court acknowledged that the plaint disclosed serious allegations that could significantly damage one’s reputation. It questioned Wikipedia’s position by asking if it would not be considered equally defamatory to accuse a news agency, such as ANI, of being a "puppet" of the Central Intelligence Agency. The court remarked that such an allegation, if true, would severely undermine the agency's credibility.
The court underscored that while Wikipedia functioned as an intermediary, it could not avoid responsibility, especially when it refused to disclose the identity of the author. It warned that this approach risked turning anonymity into a shield, leaving ANI without any defense. The court insisted that no individual or entity should be left without a remedy when faced with accusations of being a "stooge" of a government, necessitating judicial intervention.
The bench acknowledged the valuable service provided by Wikipedia as an open-source platform but cautioned that its open nature made it vulnerable to misuse. The court stressed the need for corrective measures, particularly when mistakes occurred. It suggested that while Wikipedia might be performing a unique service, it must still be prepared to defend its content.
The court concluded that the current appeal was limited to assessing whether the single judge had exercised discretion appropriately. It questioned how Wikipedia could claim the judge had failed in this regard when the arguments now presented had not been raised earlier. It observed that the prima facie test had been met, emphasizing the necessity to ensure the plaintiff's relief was not rendered meaningless.
The court, therefore, directed the counsel for the parties to submit their arguments not exceeding 3 pages. The court also directed the Single Judge to defer the matter to the second week of November. The court listed this matter for 28 October at 2:30 pm.
Background:
In a previous court hearing, the division bench had warned Wikipedia over their attempt to threaten Single Judge Navin Chawla. The court further directed the Administrator of Wikipedia India to appear in court. The court also took note of the page regarding the case, which quoted Judge Navin Chawla's warning of a potential government shutdown of Wikipedia in India.
In the main defamation suit, the single-judge bench had summoned the authorized representatives of Wikimedia Pvt Ltd. The court recognized that although Wikipedia had the right to express opinions, it would still be required to justify its actions in court, acknowledging the case as one of defamation.
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc v ANI Media Pvt Ltd. (FAO(OS)-146/2024)
Please Login or Register
