Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone

The Delhi High Court on Monday took exception to a dedicated page on Wikipedia on the pending proceedings about a Rs. 2 crores defamation suit filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform.

A division comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing an appeal filed by Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, against a single judge order directing it to disclose subscriber details of three individuals who edited ANI Wikipedia page.

The Wikipedia page in question is titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.” It reads “The judge in the case has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.”

Pulling up Wikipedia, the bench said that the page will have to be taken down and that the single judge cannot be put in fear or be threatened.

“This page (titled ANI v. Wikipedia) will have to be taken down by your client in case he even wants to be heard. Otherwise we will not hear him. And we'll direct the single judge not to hear him. You can't put the single judge in fear or threaten him,” the court told Wikipedia's advocate on record.

“You may be world's powerful entity but we live in a country which is governed by law and we take pride in that,” it added.

The development ensued after ANI's counsel, Advocate Siddhant Kumar, informed Court about the Wikipedia page and a press statement given to The Hindu newspaper on July 12 about the pending defamation case.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for Wikipedia said that corrective steps will be taken if required and sought some time to obtain instructions in the matter.

“Who is the person in charge? Call him here. He can't be interfering with a sub judice proceeding. He can't put the fear of God in the single judge,” the bench remarked.

During the hearing, Sibal told bench that the matter involves two competing interests- legal wrongs have to be addressed and concerns of privacy, anonymity as well as freedom of speech.

To this, the bench remarked: “You are a service provider. You run the risk of your protection, your safe harbour being waved, if you're taking this stand. You run the risk of your Section 79 protection going. The filing of this appeal itself means there is a waiver.”

Sibal took the Bench through international law and various precedents worldwide on the test adopted by Courts to direct disclosure of information.

He said that no prima facie view was taken by the single judge while passing the impugned order and that no injunction was granted. He also said that Wikipedia will file its reply in the defamation suit by this week as the matter is fixed for hearing on October 25.

As Sibal said that Wikipedia functions on anonymity which is its backbone, the bench orally remarked that the platform's system cannot be a cloak to defame someone.

“If these are incorrect allegations, they are scandalous to the core. If they are correct, they must be defended. And the person must come forward and say that I have the courage to defend it. You are visually accusing someone, a journalist, of being a state sponsored agent. You're saying he is a RAW agent. After filing of this appeal, your Section 79 protection cannot remain.

“We are warning you. We're telling you, we'll record over here that your protection under Section 79 is now blown up. You are now protecting the person who has done this…. We'll say your Section 79 waiver has gone. You have created an infrastructure whereby anonymity is going to be protected, where people can rely on some material which they will not have to defend. If suppose someone is relying on upon a report which is false, you are not allowing that person to put that defense of his forward, because you are not disclosing,” the bench added.

Sibal informed Court that the individuals who made the edits, are administrators who are not employees or agents of Wikipedia.

“The system cannot be a cloak to defame someone…. You are calling someone an Indian agent…. The fact that you are defending the defendants 2-4 leaves us in no doubt that it is done at your behest. The architecture that has been given to us has been devised by you. You're something more than an intermediary…. It cannot be allowed. Your system will have to go,” the bench told Sibal.

CJ Manmohan added: “You can't get away by saying someone is an Indian agent and doing an anti ISI… and hope to get away with it under a wall of privacy… you're objecting to a disclosure, we are amazed.”

The bench also said that there is a “ring of truth” in Kumar's statement that Wikipedia's counsel did not object to the direction of disclosure before the single judge.

The matter will now be heard on Wednesday.

The dispute arose after ANI filed defamation suit against Wikipedia over allegedly defamatory description of the news agency.

On August 20, Wikipedia was directed by the Court to disclose to ANI the subscriber details of the three individuals available with it within two weeks.

ANI had then filed the contempt plea against Wikipedia alleging non compliance of the order in question.

ANI had sought to restrain Wikipedia from publishing allegedly defamatory content on the news agency's page on its platform. It has also sought removal of the content. ANI has further sought Rs. 2 crores as damages from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's page says ANI "has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events.”

In its suit against Wikimedia Foundation and its officials, ANI has said that the former has allegedly published palpably false and defamatory content with malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation and to discredit its goodwill.

Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.