The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Wikipedia cannot avoid responsibility for the content published on its platform by merely claiming that it is an intermediary. The court emphasized that Wikipedia, being widely accepted as an encyclopedia, holds a greater responsibility for the information shared on its pages.

Read also: Fake Ginger Hotels Websites Banned: Delhi HC Issues Permanent Injunction & Rs 20 Lakh Fine

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed:

“Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia) professes itself to be an encyclopedia, and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on its web pages as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher.”

The court further stated:

“…this Court is of the opinion that Defendant No. 1, being an intermediary, has some fiduciary responsibilities and obligations to prevent acts of defamation.”

Read also: Adoption of 'Kindpan' Trademark Was an Attempt to Encroach on Mankind Pharma's Reputation: Delhi High Court Orders Removal

The observations were made while hearing ANI’s defamation case against Wikipedia, where the news agency challenged allegedly defamatory content published on its Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International.”

Upon reviewing ANI’s Wikipedia page, the court noted:

• The statements on ANI’s page were sourced from articles that were editorial and opinion-based rather than factual reports.
• Wikipedia, which claims to maintain neutrality, should ensure that opinions are factually backed by source articles to uphold its neutral stance.

Read also: Driving at High Speed Alone Does Not Prove Rash and Negligent Driving: Delhi High Court

The High Court pointed out that the statements on ANI’s Wikipedia page were not direct reproductions of the original articles. Instead, they were rewritten in a way that contradicted the intent behind the original publications.

“…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.”

The court further noted that Wikipedia’s content damaged ANI’s professional reputation, declaring the statements prima facie defamatory.

“…this Court finds that the opinion of Defendants No.2 to 4 does not represent the true picture of the articles and has been twisted by Defendants No.2 to 4.”

It also highlighted Wikipedia’s restriction on edits, preventing ANI from correcting or contesting the statements made on its page.

“Defendant No.1 has ensured that the articles cannot be edited by anybody else, thereby putting Plaintiff at a disadvantage to rebut what is given on the page.”

Following these findings, the court ruled in favor of ANI and directed Wikimedia Foundation to remove the defamatory statements from its Wikipedia page.

The court also disposed of ANI’s interim injunction plea, which sought the following:

1. Removal of defamatory content from ANI’s Wikipedia page.
2. Restraint on Wikipedia’s users and administrators from publishing further defamatory statements.
3. Revocation of protection status on ANI’s Wikipedia page, which prevents edits.

Background of the ANI-Wikipedia Dispute

Wikipedia’s page on ANI stated:

“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.”

ANI alleged that these claims were false and malicious, aimed at tarnishing the agency’s reputation and credibility.

In August last year, the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to disclose subscriber details of three individuals involved in editing ANI’s page.

• Wikipedia challenged this order, arguing against the disclosure of user identities.
• A division bench objected to Wikipedia’s dedicated page discussing the defamation case, titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.”
• The Wikipedia page included the claim: “The judge in the case has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.”
• The division bench ordered the removal of this Wikipedia page, calling it prima facie contemptuous due to adverse remarks made against the judge.

Eventually, Wikipedia’s appeal was disposed of after a consent order was reached between both parties. The division bench allowed the defamation suit to proceed before the single judge.

Recently, Wikipedia appealed to the Supreme Court against the division bench's order directing the removal of the Wikipedia page related to the defamation dispute. The Supreme Court has issued notice on Wikipedia’s appeal and will hear the matter.

• ANI's Counsel: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Om Batra, Mr. Akshit Mago, and Ms. Anshika Saxena.
• Wikipedia's Counsel: Mr. Jayant Mehta (Sr. Advocate), Ms. Tine Abraham, Mr. Nikhil Narendran, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhijnan Jha, Ms. Shivani Rawat, Mr. Thomas J. Vallianeth, Mr. Aayush Marwah, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Mr. Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Mr. Bakhshind Singh, Mr. Pranav Tomar, Ms. Jasleen Virk, and Ms. Diva Saigal.

Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.