The Delhi High Court Asserts That The Court’s Majesty Transcends All Others And Takes Exception To The Wikipedia Page About Pending ANI Defamation Suit
Last Updated on October 16, 2024 by Arti Kumari
On Monday, the Delhi High Court objected to a Wikipedia article that detailed ongoing legal processes over a defamation lawsuit against the platform that news agency Asian News International (ANI) had filed for Rs. 2 crores.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, filed an appeal against a single judge’s order requiring it to reveal the subscriber data of three people who altered the ANI Wikipedia page. The appeal was being heard by a division made up of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
“Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation” is the title of the relevant Wikipedia page. throughout the case, the judge has threatened to order the Indian government to shut down Wikipedia throughout the nation.
The bench, citing Wikipedia, stated that the page must be removed and that the lone judge cannot be intimidated or harmed.
If your client even wishes to be heard, he will need to remove this page (ANI v. Wikipedia). If not, we won’t hear him. Additionally, we will instruct the lone judge not to hear him. The court informed Wikipedia’s counsel on record, “You cannot threaten or intimidate the single judge.”
“You may be the most powerful entity in the world, but we take pride in the fact that we live in a nation that is governed by the law,” it said.
The event happened when Advocate Siddhant Kumar, the attorney for ANI, told the court about the Wikipedia page and a press release concerning the ongoing defamation lawsuit that was given to The Hindu newspaper on July 12.
In an appearance for Wikipedia, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal stated that corrective action would be done if necessary and asked for some time to get guidance on the subject.
The person in control is who? Give him a call here. He is not allowed to meddle in a subjudice case. The panel said, “He cannot instill the fear of God in a single judge.”
Sibal informed the bench during the hearing that the issue involves two conflicting interests: the need to rectify legal wrongs and concerns about freedom of speech, privacy, and anonymity.
The bench said, “You are a service provider,” in response. If you’re taking this stance, you could lose your protection and your safe harbor. You risk losing your protection under Section 79. There is a waiver simply by submitting this appeal.
Sibal guided the bench through international law and numerous global precedents about the standard that courts have used to guide information disclosure.
He claimed that no injunction was granted and that the sole judge did not adopt a prima facie view while issuing the contested ruling. Additionally, he stated that since the matter is scheduled for hearing on October 25, Wikipedia will submit its response to the defamation claim by this week.
The bench stated verbally that Wikipedia’s methodology cannot be used as a cover to disparage someone, since Sibal stated that anonymity is the foundation of the site.
“These claims are scandalous to the core if they are false. They need to be defended if they’re right. And the individual has to step forth and declare that they are brave enough to stand up for it. By utilizing visuals, you are accusing a journalist of being a state-sponsored agent. He is a RAW agent, you claim. Your Section 79 protection cannot continue after this appeal is filed.
“We’re alerting you. We will document here that your protection under Section 79 has been blown apart. The individual who did this is now under your protection. We will declare your Section 79 waiver null and void. You have established a system that will protect anonymity and allow individuals to rely on certain information that they won’t have to justify. The bench further stated, “If someone is relying on a report that is untrue, you are not letting them present that defense because you are not disclosing.”
Sibal told the court that the people who made the revisions are administrators, not Wikipedia staff or representatives.
“Someone cannot be defamed by the system. Someone is being referred to as an Indian agent by you. We can be certain that you are acting at your request because you are defending defendants 2-4. You are the one who came up with the architecture that was shown to us. You are more than just a go-between. It is not acceptable. The bench informed Sibal that his system would have to be discontinued.
“You can’t get away by saying someone is an Indian agent and doing an anti-ISI,” CJ Manmohan continued. and expect to get away with it behind a private wall. We’re shocked that you’re protesting a disclosure.
The panel further stated that Kumar’s claim that Wikipedia’s attorney did not protest to the disclosure order before the lone judge had a “ring of truth.”
On Wednesday, the case will now be heard.
The conflict started when ANI sued Wikipedia for allegedly derogatory remarks about the news organization.
On August 20, the Court ordered Wikipedia to provide ANI with the subscriber information of the three people who were registered with it within two weeks.
Then, ANI accused Wikipedia of violating the order in question and filed a contempt plea against the website.
ANI had attempted to stop Wikipedia from posting allegedly disparaging material on the news organization’s page on its website. It has also requested that the content be taken down. Additionally, ANI has demanded damages from Wikipedia totaling Rs. 2 crores.
According to its Wikipedia article, ANI “has been criticized for misreporting events, disseminating content from a vast network of fake news websites, and acting as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government.”
According to ANI’s lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and its representatives, the latter disseminated blatantly false and defamatory material with the deliberate goal of damaging the news organization’s reputation and undermining its goodwill.
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.
