In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday affirmed that Wikipedia, as an online intermediary, must comply with court orders to remove defamatory content without appealing on merits. The ruling came from a division bench consisting of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, who directed the removal of certain statements about the news agency ANI from its Wikipedia page.
The court’s decision reinforces the obligations of intermediaries under the Information Technology (IT) Act to act upon “false” and “untrue” content highlighted in judicial orders. According to Rule 3 of the IT Rules, intermediaries like Wikipedia must remove objectionable content within 36 hours upon receipt of a court directive.
The issue originated from a defamation suit filed by ANI, which claimed that its Wikipedia page incorrectly branded it as a “propaganda tool” for the government. ANI demanded the expunction of such defamatory assertions and sought to prevent further similar content.
During the proceedings, Wikipedia, represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, argued that it operates as a neutral platform that doesn’t exercise editorial control over user-generated content, thereby qualifying as an intermediary. Sibal contended that the injunction imposed was overly broad and indefinite, highlighting that the contentious content had been on the site since 2019.
On the other hand, ANI’s counsel, Advocate Siddhant Kumar, argued that Wikipedia had not adhered to the mandated timelines under the IT Rules, 2021, and should not contest the factual basis of the court’s directive.
Further complicating the matter, the division bench also stayed a previous order from Justice Subramonium Prasad that had removed Wikipedia’s protection status and barred it from publishing any further allegedly defamatory content.
The High Court emphasized the importance of neutrality in Wikipedia’s content, stating that an online encyclopedia must not display bias or appear opinionated. “An online encyclopedia has to maintain a standard of neutrality akin to that of traditional encyclopedias. Taking sides would degrade its status to that of a mere blog,” the bench noted.
