The legal dispute between Asian News International (ANI) and the Wikimedia Foundation, the operator of Wikipedia, has intensified as the Delhi High Court recently sought a response from Wikimedia regarding ANI's renewed plea for an interim injunction. This plea pertains to allegedly defamatory content on the Wikipedia page titled "Asian News International." ANI's application follows the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the single judge afresh for relief. Justice Jyoti Singh issued a notice on ANI's plea and granted the defendants three weeks to file a response.
The controversy began when ANI filed a defamation suit against Wikimedia, alleging that its Wikipedia page contained content that portrayed the news agency as a government propaganda tool, thereby damaging its credibility and editorial reputation. ANI sought damages amounting to ₹2 crores and the removal of the contentious material. In April, a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to ANI, directing Wikimedia to remove the allegedly defamatory content from the Wikipedia page. While the division bench upheld this order, it partially stayed the single judge's directions that restrained enforcement of the order directing Wikipedia to remove the protection status of the ANI page and prevent users and administrators from publishing defamatory content.
Wikimedia, represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, argued that there was no urgency in the matter, noting that the content in question had been present on ANI's Wikipedia page since 2019, while the suit was filed only in 2024. Wikimedia is challenging the limitation, jurisdiction, and maintainability of the plea. Sibal emphasized the importance of protecting the anonymity of Wikipedia editors and cautioned against setting a precedent that could have a chilling effect on free speech.
The Supreme Court had earlier set aside the injunction orders passed by the Delhi High Court, observing that the direction to remove all false, misleading, and defamatory content was "very broadly worded" and not capable of being implemented. This development underscores the complexities involved in balancing the right to reputation with the principles of free speech and the operational dynamics of online platforms like Wikipedia.
The case has broader implications for the application of the "safe harbour" provisions under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which protect intermediaries from liability for user-generated content, provided they adhere to certain conditions. The Delhi High Court's observations suggest that intermediaries like Wikipedia may risk losing this protection if they fail to comply with court orders or are perceived to be taking sides in content disputes.
As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of this case could significantly impact the responsibilities and liabilities of online platforms in India, particularly concerning user-generated content and the extent to which intermediaries must act to prevent the dissemination of defamatory material.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.