Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, pronounced a judgment in favour of Asian News International (ANI) in a defamation suit filed against Wikipedia for posting defamatory statements against the former. 

The case stemmed from a page about ANI created in 2006 on Wikipedia, allowing public edits. Until February 2019, it contained neutral information from trusted sources. Defendants No. 2 to 4 (Administrators) allegedly altered it with defamatory remarks, which remained despite attempts to correct them in April 2024 using sources like BBC. In May 2024, Wikipedia reversed these edits and locked the page. On June 13, 2024, ANI issued a cease-and-desist notice, citing false allegations, including political bias, propaganda, low-quality journalism, fake news, and employee mistreatment, which persist on the page.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held, “these impugned statements are written in such a way which is totally contradictory to the intent with which these Articles were written and the impugned statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff on the Platform of Defendant No. 1 are devoid of the context of the Articles. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned statements are ex-facie defamatory and tarnishes the professional reputation of the Plaintiff”. 

Wikipedia contended that it functioned as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and therefore bore no responsibility for the impugned statements made by Defendants No. 2 to 4 (Administrators) on the ANI’s page. However, the court held that Wikipedia, as an intermediary, had certain fiduciary responsibilities and obligations to prevent acts of defamation. Consequently, Wikipedia could not entirely absolve itself of liability for the content of the article merely on the ground that it acted as an intermediary and, therefore, could not be held accountable for the statements published on its platform.  

The court empahsized, “Defendant No.1 professes itself to be an encyclopedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth”. As a result, the court opined that the responsibility of Wikipedia was greater. 

Additionally, the court noted that Defendants No. 2 to 4 were duly served but failed to appear before the court and did not submit any pleadings or responses.  

Further, to determine whether the impugned statements were derived from the cited sources relied upon by Defendants No. 2 to 4 and whether they adhered to the publishing policy of Wikipedia’s platform, the court examined Wikipedia’s policy as well as the sources cited by Defendants No. 2 to 4. 

Upon reviewing Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, which required encyclopedic content on Wikipedia to be written from a neutral point of view without editorial bias, the court observed that the statements on the ANI’s page were sourced from articles that were essentially editorials and opinion pieces. 

Wikipedia, while adhering to its policy of avoiding opinions being presented as facts and maintaining its status as an encyclopedia, was also required to ensure that the opinions cited were genuinely supported by the source articles. This measure was necessary to uphold its neutrality policy, the court highlighted. 

Addressing the argument of Wikipedia regarding the applicability of the Single Publication Rule, the court found it appropriate to reaffirm the established legal position on this matter. 

“Single Publication Rule only applies when the second publication is a verbatim reproduction of the first publication”, the court reiterated. After examining the articles cited by Defendants No. 2 to 4 in support of the impugned statements, the court determined that the impugned statements on the ANI’s page were not verbatim reproductions of those articles. Instead, they were phrased in a manner that contradicted the original intent of the cited articles and failed to maintain their original context. Thus, the court concluded that the impugned statements were prima facie defamatory and had tarnished the Plaintiff’s professional reputation.  

The court further held that since Defendants No. 2 to 4 failed to appear despite receiving service, and upon examining the articles cited as sources, the court found that their statements did not accurately represent the content of the cited articles and had been distorted by Defendants No. 2 to 4. 

Additionally, the court found merit in the ANI’s allegation that Wikipedia had restricted the ability to edit these articles, thereby placing the ANI at a disadvantage in refuting the statements on the page. 

Previously, 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”.

In a October 2024 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.

For ANI: Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra, Akshit Mago and Anshika Saxena
For Wikimedia: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Advocates Tine Abraham, Nikhil Narendran, Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Abhijnan Jha, Shivani Rawat, Thomas J. Vallianeth, Aayush Marwah, Shubhangni Jain, Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Bakhshind Singh, Pranav Tomar, Jasleen Virk, Diva Saigal
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (2025:DHC:2307)