'Nothing Worse For News Agency Being Called Puppet Of Govt': Delhi High Court To Wikipedia In Defamation Battle With ANI

While hearing an ongoing defamation battle between Wikipedia and Asian News International (ANI), the Delhi High Court on Monday told the platform that nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an Intelligence Agency or a stooge of the Government.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing the 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.

During the hearing, the bench remarked that the plaint in the suit discloses “very serious allegations” against ANI. CJ Manmohan further remarked that the single judge was very cautious before passing the impugned order and had given sufficient time to Wikipedia for filing its reply in the matter, which it failed to do.

“The single judge was very cautious. He gives you a notice returnable virtually after four weeks, and says, file your reply. You don't file a reply…Many people think that it's an ex parte order. This is not an ex parte order. The single judge is very, very conscious in issuing notice on day one, asking for a reply. When the reply does not come, then he says this must be done,” the bench said.

It added,

“We have put it to you that we have gone through the plaint. The plaint is disclosing very serious allegations which would spurge anyone's fair name and reputation. We asked you, put your client in the same place as the respondent stands before us. You would have to admit before us that they are per se scandalous, defamatory, if not proven to be true. You are accusing someone of being a puppet of a Central Intelligence Agency. I think nothing can be worse for a news agency to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency or stooge of the government. If that is true, then his credibility goes.”

CJ Manmohan also remarked that earlier, the worst abuse one politician used to give to the other was that “you are a stooge of Central Intelligence Agency” and the biggest abuse in Parliament used to be that “this opposition party leader is a CIA.”

“When these allegations are made, these are serious allegations. You will say that I am an intermediary. I have done nothing. Who will defend these allegations? You are not disclosing the name of the author. If you don't disclose the name of the author, you take the defense of intermediary, then all of this will become a cloak to hide behind the veil of anonymity and to be sure that the case does not proceed. He (ANI) will have no defense. He'll have no remedy. He can't be left remediless if he's called a stooge of the RAW agency, he will have to have a defense,” the bench said.

CJ Manmohan also told Wikipedia that the platform is doing an amazing work in providing an open source encyclopedia but in such a condition, someone can infiltrate its working also.

“And if it is one intelligence agency working against the other…Someone will have to act as an arbiter and decide this. The courts will have to step in. But the problem today is, the moment someone steps in to resolve the dispute, he becomes a dispute and your intermediary started a page on the court as if we are the problem. We are the problem solver. We have become the problem,” CJ said.

The judge was referring to a dedicated page on Wikipedia on the pending defamation case. Court had earlier expressed displeasure over it after it found the page reads “The judge in the case has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.”

He added: “It is a unique thing that is coming. You will be doing unique service to the mankind. But at the same time, mistakes can happen in any agency, and you have to have a corrective mechanism. He (ANI) is exploring that corrective mechanism. I think he'll have to have a say in court. You can't say that he will not have a say in court. How will he have a say in court till you disclose who the author of the article is? If you, if your version is correct, please defend it by all means. Please defend it. No one is saying that you're going to be defenseless. No one is taking away your right to defense. This court is not saying that you will go to jail. No one is saying that. You please have the courage to defend what you have said. But to say that I am an intermediary. I will not get involved in this. I'm not liable, and I will not disclose to you who's the author, then how will the suit proceed? That cannot happen.”

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for Wikipedia submitted that before ordering disclosure of the individuals. identities, the single judge should have reached a prima facie view that the content in question was per se defamatory. He also said that the single judge failed to note the fact that the impugned content has been on Wikipedia since 2020 but the suit was filed only in 2024.

“The single judge may have said that since you've come after so long, we won't direct disclosure straightaway and the intermediary needs to be heard,” Sibal argued.

He added, “On that day when we sought further time to place our affidavit, and time was granted, all this robust argument didn't take place, is that enough to sustain the order without even recording of a prima facie view that it is per se defamatory? That's all I'm saying.”

The Bench has now directed the parties to file their responses and listed the appeal for hearing on October 28.

ANI's counsel, Advocate Siddhant Kumar, submitted that he would not press, before the single judge, the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC on October 25, the next date of hearing.

The bench then clarified that ANI shall be at liberty to file its application filed under Order 39 Rule 1&2 in accordance with law.

Today, the Court was also informed that Wikipedia has taken down the page on the pending defamation proceedings. The bench thus closed a fresh contempt plea moved by ANI against Wikipedia for failing to comply with the take down order in time.

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.