Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court issued a stern warning to Wikipedia on September 5 in response to a contempt petition filed by ANI Media Private Limited. The petition alleges that Wikipedia failed to comply with a court order demanding details about individuals who made alterations to the news agency’s Wikipedia page.
During the proceedings, Wikipedia’s attorney argued that since the platform is not based in India, it took longer for them to comply with the court’s instructions. However, Justice Navin Chawla strongly rebuked this defence, stating, “I will impose contempt. It is not a question of Defendant No. 1 (Wikipedia) not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia. Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India.”
Justice Chawla further emphasised that if Wikipedia continued to disregard court orders, the platform could face both contempt charges and a government-imposed ban. The court scheduled the next hearing for October 25 and mandated that an authorized representative from Wikipedia appear in person.
The defamation suit filed by ANI accuses Wikipedia of allowing defamatory edits to its page, which branded the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current government. ANI asserts that the content damages its reputation and has requested the court to direct Wikipedia to remove the allegedly derogatory content and to prevent any future defamatory posts. Additionally, ANI has demanded damages of Rs. 2 crores from Wikipedia.
The legal dispute began when Wikipedia was summoned by the Delhi High Court to provide details of the three individuals who had made the controversial edits to ANI’s page. Wikipedia initially appeared before the court on August 20, where ANI emphasised that Wikipedia had not refuted that the three parties named in the defamation case were not its administrators. The court subsequently ordered Wikipedia to provide ANI with the subscriber data of the three individuals within two weeks.
Despite the order, ANI contended in its 5th September contempt application that Wikipedia had failed to comply with the directive. ANI’s petition argued, “Thus, the conduct of Defendant No. 1 has resulted in a loss of its safe-harbour protection under section 79(1) of the Act, and made it liable for hosting and publishing defamatory content.”
In its lawsuit, ANI has claimed that Wikipedia, along with its parent company Wikimedia Foundation and its officials, have deliberately damaged the news agency’s goodwill by publishing defamatory and false content. ANI alleged that Wikipedia officials have taken a proactive role in deleting edits to reverse the content.
The lawyer representing Wikipedia informed the court that because the platform is based outside India, providing specific documents required additional time. However, the court expressed its displeasure, stating that this argument had already been dismissed in earlier hearings. The High Court maintained a firm stance, warning Wikipedia of the consequences of non-compliance, including potential contempt charges and a possible ban.
As the matter progresses, all eyes will be on the next hearing scheduled for October 25, when the court expects a representative from Wikipedia to be present and provide further clarification on the issue.
Leave a Comment