The court recorded that the page terms the direction of a single judge to identity of editors who made the edits amounted to “censorship and a threat to the flow of information”.
The division bench further outlined that they would hear Wikimedia’s merits in the case only after the latter takes down the page
The court was hearing a plea against the single-judge order of August 20 asking Wikimedia to disclose the identities of four administrators who made controversial edits to its page on the news agency
The Delhi High Court has directed Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to take down a page within 36 hours on Wikipedia which deals with the news agency ANI’s defamation suit against the foundation.
Taking strong objection to a page on the platform — ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation’ — while the matter is sub judice before the court, the court recorded that the page terms the direction of a single judge to identity of editors who made the edits amounted to “censorship and a threat to the flow of information”.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela pointed out that adverse comments were made against the single judge on the page which “was prima facie contemptuous” and “amount to interference in court proceedings”.
The division bench further outlined that they would hear Wikimedia’s merits in the case only after the latter takes down the page. To this, Wikimedia assured the court of adhering to the orders.
The court was hearing a plea against the single-judge order of August 20 asking Wikimedia to disclose the identities of four administrators who made controversial edits to its page on the news agency.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal representing Wikimedia informed the court, “..Didn’t say I am not going to comply with court orders, or we are not subject to orders of this court, that’s why we are availing legal remedies…but to assume in advance that we are going to thumb our nose and not comply with orders, it is not a defiant attitude that we will not comply…the only point we wanted to make is, that according to us, this would be a dangerous precedent for all future suits, our concern is not for this particular suit”.
Sibal further expressed concerns around single judge order saying that before a disclosure order is passed there should be some test.
“Our issue is not this particular content, issue is we don’t want this to be a Pandora’s box where a client files a suit and says first disclosure then merit…Everyone is following the matter, there is a robust public discussion because people believe there is a point of principle,” he added.
The next hearing is scheduled for October 25 to discuss further developments on the case.
For the uninitiated, ANI sued Wikipedia’s parent Wikimedia Foundation last month, alleging that certain edits on its Wikipedia page described ANI as a “propaganda tool” for the Indian government and included other defamatory content.
It is pertinent to note that ANI is a news agency, which largely syndicates video and text feed from around the country to news channels and other outlets while Wikipedia is a global digital platform disseminating information.
On a broader level, this case highlights the ongoing tension between international platforms like Wikipedia and local legal frameworks in India. It also reflects a tussle between balancing freedom of expression and accountability for content published on the platform.
