The Delhi High Court recently directed Wikipedia to remove all false and defamatory content against news agency ANI, and stated that the platform, being an intermediary, “has some fiduciary responsibilities and obligations to prevent acts of defamation.”
According to advocate Sidhant Kumar Marwah, representing ANI, this is the first such ruling by an Indian court in which Wikipedia has been directed to remove defamatory content.
Ruling in favour of a plea by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia Foundation Inc on April 2, Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the statements describing the news agency on its Wikipedia page tarnish its reputation.
Relying on Wikipedia’s policy, which states that any encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view without any editorial bias, the court recorded, “On perusal of the page pertaining to the Plaintiff (ANI), it appears that the statements…are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages.”
“Defendant No.1 (Wikimedia Foundation Inc), which is following the policy to avoid stating opinions as facts and also professing it to be an encyclopaedia, has to also see as to whether the opinions are actually based on the source articles or not so that neutral policy of Defendant No.1 is not violated,” it added.
Justice Prasad observed that the alleged defamatory statements on ANI’s Wikipedia page “are not verbatim reproduction” of articles cited as sources, “and 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.”
The court further reasoned, “Defendant No.1 (Wikimedia Foundation Inc), therefore, cannot completely wash its hands of the contents of the article on the ground that it is only an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statement that is published on its platform.”
Story continues below this ad
“Defendant No.1 professes itself to be an encyclopaedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher,” it stated.
Last year, a division bench of the Delhi High Court had ordered Wikipedia to take down a page titled ‘Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation’ detailing the defamation litigation. This too was a first in India, wherein a court ordered to take down a page on the platform. The division bench had held that the page was “contemptuous” and amounted “to interference in the court proceedings.” This order has, however, been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The apex court had, last month, expressed concern on the “validity and legality” of the high court’s directions to take down the page, and a two-judge division bench headed by Justice Abhay Oka had orally remarked, “To bring the best out of the lawyers, sometimes we say so many things in open court. Now, if the court says something orally and, on social media, somewhere there is a comment offered, why should the court be touchy about such comments… Somebody discusses something which happens in the court, will that amount to interference?”
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd