Jump to content

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft:ANI vs. Wikipedia)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation
Emblem of India
CourtDelhi High Court
Full case name ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors.[1]
Court membership
Judges sitting
Keywords

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (CS(OS) 524/2024) is an ongoing civil defamation case in India.

ANI Media Private Limited, the parent company of news agency Asian News International (ANI), filed a ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in 2024 over the description of ANI in the English Wikipedia article about the news agency.

A judge in the case warned that the court could order the government of India to block Wikipedia in the country. Critics have characterised the judge's order directing WMF to release the identities of the editors who made the edits as censorship and a threat to the flow of information.[2][3]

Following a Delhi High Court warning in October 2024 that the article may violate sub judice rules and a subsequent takedown order, the WMF suspended access to the English Wikipedia article "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation", blocking it from view for both readers and editors of the online encyclopedia.[4] However, access was restored on 9 May 2025, following a WMF appeal and a Supreme Court decision in their favour.

Background

[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia

[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is the non-profit organisation that supports Wikipedia, in multiple languages, and multiple other similar projects.[5] Each project is independent and largely self-governed; the WMF exerts limited authority over any project, and typically remains uninvolved with content policy.[6][7] The presence of Wikipedia in India includes Wikipedia's interaction with India's media environment, the people who edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's popularity among readers.[8]

Wikipedia is created and maintained completely by volunteer "editors", its term for anyone who makes as much a single typo correction on an article. Hundreds of thousands of such editors exist worldwide, and most can make changes to most articles on the website. A smaller number of editors make enough edits that they are allowed to edit nearly any article.[5] Editors are pseudonymous, except those who voluntarily disclose their identities.[7]

Wikipedia articles generally are protected if the article is experiencing a high level of vandalism or an edit war, a series of back-and-forth reversions between two or more versions by two or more editors. In 2020, the article about news agency Asian News International was edited to include content from new sources discussing the agency's record, and an edit war ensued – involving new editors making the same changes to remove the new additions – and the article was eventually protected.[9][7]

Defamation in India

[edit]

In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law, or both.[10] According to the Constitution of India, the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to "reasonable restrictions".[11]

Safe Harbour in India

[edit]

The Safe Harbour clause of Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000, comparable to Section 230 of Communications Act of 1934 in the United States, exempts online platforms from any legal liability for third-party content generated by its users and hosted by the platform, subject to several conditions.[12][13] In February 2021, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government introduced amendments to the IT Act, imposing stricter obligations on intermediaries, including requiring them to proactively monitor content for illegal or harmful activity.[14][15]

Court case

[edit]

Defamation suit

[edit]

The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors.[16][6][3][17][12] At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about Asian News International (ANI) said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions".[18][19][12][17]

The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill".[7] It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content.[6][16][17][20][21]

ANI asked for ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) in damages and an injunction against Wikipedia "making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI".[16][7] It also argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media "intermediary" within the definition of Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000, and must therefore comply with the requirements of the Act, including taking down any content that the government or its agencies deem violative, or be personally liable for content published under its platform.[12]

Defamation suit proceedings

[edit]

Chawla issued a summons to WMF and set a hearing date of 20 August 2024.[22][21] On 20 August, Chawla ordered WMF to disclose identifying details of three editors who had worked on the Wikipedia article about ANI – also defendants in the lawsuit – within two weeks, so that ANI can pursue legal action against them as individuals.[18][2][23]

On 5 September 2024, ANI asked the court to hold WMF in contempt when the identifying details were not released.[18][7] Chawla complied and warned WMF that the court could order the government of India to block Wikipedia in the country, saying "We will not take it any more. If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will close your business transactions here."[24][25][9] He further ordered that an "authorised representative" of WMF appear in person at the next hearing, which was scheduled for 25 October 2024.[18][23][26] In response, Wikimedia emphasised that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources and their delay stemmed from being based in a foreign country.[18][27]

Days later, the WMF appealed Chawla's order, petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before asking for disclosure.[27] On 14 October, a bench – comprising justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela – heard the appeal; they said that Wikipedia's portrayal of ANI was potentially defamatory and therefore must be defended by the editors in question.[25][28] They also characterised Wikipedia's refusal to divulge the identifying details as "extremely disturbing" and warned that WMF would lose its safe harbour protection under the IT Act if it chose to defend the allegations of defamation.[27][29][28]

On 28 October, the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the court's request to disclose the identifying information of online users involved in editing the ANI page.[30] An arrangement was reached in the High Court on 11 November to have the Foundation serving the summons papers to the involved users as an intermediary while disclosing the email identities of the users under sealed cover to the judge, which would still protect the privacy of the individuals for the time being.[31][32]

On 2 April 2025, the Delhi High Court granted the interim injunction in favour of ANI and ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content, remove the article's protected status, and "restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency".[33] An appeal of the order was denied on 8 April by a division bench, though it slightly revised the order.[34] The Foundation subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India over the 2 April and 8 April orders. The Supreme Court heard the case on 17 April, and decided to set aside the 2 April and 8 April orders as they were "broadly worded" and could not be implemented. In the same decision, ANI was granted a relief to refile the interim application before a single-judge back in the high court.[35] On 8 May, the Foundation withdrew its appeal with the division bench after the Supreme Court's decision.[36]

On 9 May 2025, after ANI had filed a fresh application for interim relief pursuant to the Supreme Court order, the second proceeding was heard in front of Justice Jyoti Singh. The case was adjourned to be heard on 7 July after WMF's senior advocate Akhil Sibal requested for more time.[37]

Lawsuit article's takedown proceedings

[edit]
Message displayed to users on the English Wikipedia when access to the article was suspended.

On 14 October, the judges further objected to the creation of this article about the defamation case, alleging interference with "a sub-judice matter" and took particular umbrage at the article mentioning criticism of Chawla's order.[27][38] Later that week, the court passed an order directing all "pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge [Chawla] as well as discussion of the observations of division bench [Manmohan and Gedela]" to be "taken down or deleted within 36 hours".[39][40][41]

On 18 October, ANI asked the court to seek contempt proceedings against the WMF for not taking down this article, since the 36-hour deadline had not been complied with.[42]

As a result, on 21 October 2024, the WMF removed access to the Wikipedia article "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation", blocking it from view for both readers and editors of the online encyclopedia, following a Delhi High Court warning that the article may violate sub judice rules.[4]

On 17 March 2025, a two-judge bench, consisting of A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea filed by WMF against the article takedown order by the Delhi High Court. They noted the matter involved freedom of media and questioned the High Court on why it was "so touchy" about the subject.[43] The panel questioned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that judges and courts should be more tolerant of criticism; requiring the removal of content because of criticism may not be correct. The judges also stated that the order was about press freedom broadly and said it was "ironical" that ANI, an organisation reliant on press freedom, is trying to censor content on Wikipedia.[44][45][46] On 9 May 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's decision to take down the article about the defamation case[47][48] and access to the article was restored on the same day.[49]

Analysis and comment

[edit]

According to Indian media watchdog Newslaundry, the sentence ANI objects to has "clear citations that lead to the primary source of information", including to The Caravan, The Ken, BBC News, EU DisinfoLab, Politico, and The Diplomat. Newslaundry and journalist Nikhil Pahwa pointed out that none of the media organisations used as sources were included in ANI's complaint.[7][3] According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold the WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia.[12]

Software Freedom Law Center, India, a member-affiliate of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, said the suit was an attempt at stifling free speech.[13] Nishant Shah, professor of Global Media at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, wrote that Chawla's decision to order the release of personally-identifying information seemed to be "a challenge to freedom of speech and information" and would result in the censorship of "any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like".[2] Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to "stifle the flow of information and knowledge".[3] Multiple lawyers have critiqued Manmohan and Gedela's order to take down the page on the litigation, too, disagreeing with the allegations of interfering with judicial proceedings and noting similar coverage by mainstream media.[27]

Tanveer Hasan, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, called the proceedings an "assault on the freedom of speech under the guise of technological regulation".[27]

On the Supreme Court's 9 May judgement, a legal researcher commenting in The Indian Express said "... the Wikipedia v ANI decision is not merely a win for one online platform, it draws a line in the sand. The Supreme Court has reminded lower courts and litigants alike that judicial power must be exercised with restraint, especially in matters concerning speech."[50]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "CS(OS) 524/2024". Delhi High Court. Archived from the original on 6 September 2024. Retrieved 12 October 2024.
  2. ^ a b c Shah, Nishant (17 September 2024). "Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  3. ^ a b c d Lobo, Simone (10 October 2024). "ANI case: How Delhi HC's Wikipedia ban threat affects India". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  4. ^ a b Deep, Aroon (21 October 2024). "Wikipedia suspends page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  5. ^ a b Hafner, Katie (17 June 2006). "Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 12 December 2022. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  6. ^ a b c "Delhi HC Issues Notice To Wikipedia After ANI's Plea". Outlook India. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 14 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g Explained: What's ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about?. Newslaundry. 18 September 2024. Archived from the original on 23 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024 – via YouTube.
  8. ^ Gautam, John (2011). "Wikipedia in India: Past, Present, Future". In Lovink, Geert; Tkacz, Nathaniel (eds.). Critical point of view : a Wikipedia reader. Institute of Network Cultures. pp. 283–287. ISBN 978-90-78146-13-1. Archived from the original on 12 September 2024. Retrieved 16 October 2024.
  9. ^ a b Deep, Aroon (10 September 2024). "On ANI's defamation suit against Wikipedia | Explained". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 5 October 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  10. ^ Swamy, Subramanian (21 September 2004). "Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 22 July 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  11. ^ Vishwanath, Apurva (9 November 2022). "First amendment to Constitution challenged: What happened in SC in 1950 that provoked Nehru to amend Article 19(2)?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2 July 2024. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
  12. ^ a b c d e Khan, Khadija (10 July 2024). "Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 6 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  13. ^ a b "Explained: 'Safe Harbour' Clause And Why Government Wants It Gone". NDTV. 10 March 2023. Archived from the original on 27 September 2024. Retrieved 17 October 2024.
  14. ^ Gupta, Abhishek Nath Tripathi & Narayan (8 June 2021). "Intermediary Status: Socially Available, Legally Endangered". www.livelaw.in. Archived from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2024.
  15. ^ "Explained: Social media and safe harbour". The Indian Express. 27 May 2021. Archived from the original on 22 November 2023. Retrieved 20 October 2024.
  16. ^ a b c Thapliyal, Nupur (9 July 2024). "ANI Files Rs 2 Crore Defamation Suit Against Wikipedia Before Delhi High Court, Summons Issued". LiveLaw. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  17. ^ a b c Parasnis, Sharveya (10 July 2024). "ANI Sues Wikipedia for Defamation, Demands INR 2 Crore". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 10 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  18. ^ a b c d e "Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order". The Hindu. 5 September 2024. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 14 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  19. ^ Deep, Aroon (12 July 2024). "Content determined by volunteer editors, says Wikipedia parent". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 23 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  20. ^ Singh, Abhinav (5 September 2024). "'Please don't work in India if...': Indian court reprimands Wikipedia for not obeying orders". WION. Archived from the original on 5 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  21. ^ a b "News agency ANI files Rs 2 crore defamation suit against Wikipedia in Delhi High Court". Deccan Herald. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 6 September 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  22. ^ "ANI files defamation suit against Wikipedia, seeks Rs 2 cr in damages". The Siasat Daily. 9 July 2024. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  23. ^ a b "Delhi HC issues contempt notice to Wikipedia, warns of blocking website in country". The Economic Times. 6 September 2024. ISSN 0013-0389. Archived from the original on 6 October 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  24. ^ Krishna, Yadav (5 September 2024). "Delhi HC warns Wikipedia over ANI defamation case, issues contempt notice". Mint. Archived from the original on 27 September 2024. Retrieved 17 October 2024.
  25. ^ a b "ANI vs Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia's impact on India and more". The Hindu. 12 September 2024. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 10 October 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  26. ^ Jha, Prashant (5 September 2024). ""Will ask government to block you": Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
  27. ^ a b c d e f Bhalla, Vineet (19 October 2024). "Why Delhi HC is angry with Wikipedia for calling ANI a 'government propaganda tool'". Scroll.in. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
  28. ^ a b Ahsan, Sofi (20 October 2024). "ANI versus Wikipedia: What is at stake?". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 20 October 2024.
  29. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (14 October 2024). "Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
  30. ^ Rahman, Shaikh Azizur (3 November 2024). "Wikipedia embroiled in legal battle in India". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 10 November 2024. Retrieved 10 November 2024.
  31. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (11 November 2024). "Delhi High Court allows Wikipedia to serve summons on users in ANI's defamation suit". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 19 November 2024.
  32. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (14 November 2024). "Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users in ANI's defamation suit". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 19 November 2024.
  33. ^ Thapliyal, Nupur (2 April 2025). "Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Allegedly Defamatory Description Of ANI On Its Wikipedia Page". Live Law. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  34. ^ "Remove defamatory content about ANI, Delhi HC tells Wikipedia". The Hindu. 8 April 2025. Archived from the original on 9 April 2025. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  35. ^ "'Broadly Worded': Supreme Court Quashes HC Order Asking Wikipedia to Remove Content on ANI". The Wire. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  36. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (8 May 2025). "Wikipedia withdraws appeal against ANI in Delhi High Court after Supreme Court relief". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  37. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (9 May 2025). "Second round of ANI vs. Wikipedia begins before Delhi High Court". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  38. ^ Thapliyal, Nupur (14 October 2024). "Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone". LiveLaw. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
  39. ^ Thapliyal, Nupur (16 October 2024). "'Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI". LiveLaw. Retrieved 16 October 2024.
  40. ^ "ANI vs Wikipedia defamation case: Delhi High Court orders Wikimedia to take down ANI page within 36 hours". The Hindu. 16 October 2024. Retrieved 16 October 2024.
  41. ^ Srivastava, Bhavini (16 October 2024). "Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to take down page on ongoing case filed by ANI". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 17 October 2024.
  42. ^ Kakkar, Shruti (18 October 2024). "ANI asks HC to initate contempt case against Wikipedia, says 36 hr deadline over". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
  43. ^ Jamal, Ummar (17 March 2025). "Courts have to be tolerant: Supreme Court on Delhi HC's takedown order against Wikipedia in ANI case". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 17 March 2025.
  44. ^ "SC slams Delhi HC order directing Wikipedia to remove ANI defamation case page". The News Minute. 18 March 2025. Archived from the original on 15 April 2025. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  45. ^ "Supreme Court questions legality of Delhi HC's order directing removal of Wikipedia page on ANI defamation suit". The New Indian Express. 17 March 2025. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  46. ^ Anand, Utkarsh (18 March 2025). "Courts should not gag criticism, says top court". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  47. ^ Roy, Debayan (9 May 2025). "Win for Wikipedia as Supreme Court quashes Delhi High Court's order to takedown page on ANI v Wiki case". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  48. ^ Chaturvedi, Arpan (9 May 2025). "India Supreme Court reverses content takedown order against Wikipedia operator". Reuters.
  49. ^ "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation: Difference between revisions". English Wikipedia. Retrieved 10 May 2025.
  50. ^ Kartikeya, Kumar (12 May 2025). "Drawing a line in the sand: SC judgment reaffirms right to free speech". The Indian Express. Retrieved 13 May 2025.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation&oldid=1293117759"