Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to take down page in ANI case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Wikipedia to take down a page related to the ongoing defamation case filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform. A Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Photo for representational purpose only. File photo
Advertisement

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Wikipedia to take down a page related to the ongoing defamation case filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform.

A Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the existence of the Wikipedia page titled ‘Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation’ and instructed that it be removed before further proceedings.

The case revolves around a defamation lawsuit ANI filed against Wikipedia, accusing the platform of hosting defamatory edits that referred to the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current Indian government.

Advertisement

The agency contended that Wikipedia allowed these edits to persist and failed to take appropriate action, which led to a court summons issued on July 9. The court also ordered Wikipedia to disclose information about the individuals responsible for the edits.

However, ANI later filed a contempt application, alleging non-compliance with the order. As a result, Justice Navin Chawla ordered an authorised representative of Wikipedia to be present in court on October 25. Wikipedia then appealed this order, which brought the matter before the division bench.

Advertisement

During a prior hearing, the Bench raised concerns over the Wikipedia page discussing the case itself and demanded that the online platform take it down. Wikipedia’s refusal to disclose the identities of the editors involved also became a point of contention, with the court warning that this could jeopardise its ‘safe harbour’ protections under the Information Technology (IT) Act.

The court made it clear that Wikipedia’s status as an intermediary, protected from liability, was at risk due to its refusal to cooperate with the court’s orders.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper