The Delhi High Court today issued a stern warning to Wikipedia regarding its refusal to disclose the identities of users who allegedly made defamatory edits on the page of Asian News International (ANI), a major news agency. The court emphasized that Wikipedia might lose its safe harbor protections under the Information Technology (IT) Act if it continues to protect the anonymity of these users.
During the hearing, the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, expressed their concern over Wikipedia’s role as more than just an intermediary. “You are the service provider; you run some risk of your protection, safe harbor being waived,” Justice Manmohan remarked, suggesting that the platform’s intermediary status could be at risk.
The bench highlighted the gravity of the defamation allegations and indicated that it might soon conclude that the legal thresholds for ordering the disclosure of user identities are met. “The system cannot be a cloak to defame someone,” the court declared, criticizing Wikipedia for its vehement defense, which casts doubts on its neutrality.
Further complicating the situation, the court took issue with Wikipedia allowing a page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation’ to be published, which details the ongoing legal proceedings. This act was met with disapproval from the bench, which found it disturbing that Wikipedia appeared to consider itself “beyond the ambit of law.”
The case stems from a defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikipedia after defamatory descriptions labeled the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current Union government. Following ANI’s complaint, the Delhi High Court had previously issued summons to Wikipedia, demanding the identification of the responsible users.
However, Wikipedia’s appeal against this order, as argued by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, was based on the principle of user anonymity which is fundamental to the platform’s operation. Sibal emphasized the importance of hearing Wikipedia’s arguments regarding the protection of anonymity.
Despite these pleas, the court maintained that identity disclosure was essential for proceeding with the defamation suit. “Filing of an appeal itself means that [you are waiving legal protection],” Justice Manmohan explained, indicating the potential implications of Wikipedia’s actions on its legal protections in India.
ANI’s counsel, Advocate Sidhant Kumar, accused Wikipedia of justifying the defamatory content under the guise of “fair comment” and alleged that the platform harbored an agenda against ANI. In response, the court warned Wikipedia of severe legal consequences if it failed to comply with the court’s directives.
The court concluded with a stark reminder to Wikipedia: “You may be backed by the world’s most powerful power, but I think we live in a country which is governed by the rule of law, and we take pride in that.”
