Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to remove page on ANI defamation case
text_fields
The Delhi High Court has ordered Wikipedia to take down a page regarding the ongoing defamation case filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, has been directed to comply with the order within 36 hours, reported Live Law.
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed concerns over comments on the page that criticized a single-judge bench, deeming them potentially contemptuous. The court emphasized that such remarks could not be allowed to interfere with judicial proceedings and instructed the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the content, reported The Hindu.
During Wednesday’s hearing, ANI’s legal counsel highlighted that after previous court sessions, the bench’s remarks had been discussed on the Wikipedia page in question. The court labeled these discussions as contempt of court and interference in ongoing proceedings.
Akhil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, indicated that the platform would comply with the court’s directive to remove the page. The case is scheduled to continue next week.
Earlier, the court had criticized Wikipedia for allowing the page titled "Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation" to be published, asserting that the platform could not disclose details about ongoing legal matters. The court found it troubling that Wikipedia considered itself beyond legal accountability.
This case stems from ANI’s complaint about allegedly defamatory content on its Wikipedia page, which claims the news agency has been criticized as a "propaganda tool" for the Indian government. In July, the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose the identities of the editors responsible for the content. ANI later accused Wikipedia of failing to comply with the court’s orders, leading the court to issue a contempt notice in September and warn that the platform could be blocked in India.
Wikipedia's legal protection under the Information Technology Act, which shields online intermediaries from legal consequences for user-generated content, has also been brought into question in light of the case.
