Wikipedia is an intermediary, can’t appeal takedown court order on merits: HC
The high court said since Wikipedia presented itself as an encyclopaedia, it was under a mandate to take a neutral stand with regards to its publications
NEW DELHI: A division bench of the Delhi high court on Tuesday directed Wikipedia to take down allegedly defamatory statements about news agency ANI from its page, holding that it was obligated under the Information Technology (IT) Act to take down “false” and “untrue” content following the court order and could not contest the matter on merits.
“Since Wikipedia claims to be intermediary, in terms of IT Rules, the intermediary has an obligation to make efforts not to publish any objectionable content. Perusal of Rule 3 of the IT Rules shows that if there is any content on Wikipedia website which a person whose info it professes to publish is false and untrue, on receipt of court order, within 36 hours, the intermediary is obliged to take down content. The single judge heard parties and gave prima facie opinion that content is defamatory. Wikipedia would be liable to follow IT Rules and if the same is not taken down, the plaintiff can approach this court,” a bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.
The bench’s verdict came on an appeal by the platform against the April 2 order passed by justice Subramonium Prasad in a defamation suit that told the platform to take down the allegedly defamatory content.
{{/usCountry}}The bench’s verdict came on an appeal by the platform against the April 2 order passed by justice Subramonium Prasad in a defamation suit that told the platform to take down the allegedly defamatory content.
{{/usCountry}}The defamation suit arose from ANI’s plea before a single judge that its Wikipedia page falsely described it as a “propaganda tool” for the government. ANI sought the removal of such statements and a court order barring further defamatory content.
{{/usCountry}}The defamation suit arose from ANI’s plea before a single judge that its Wikipedia page falsely described it as a “propaganda tool” for the government. ANI sought the removal of such statements and a court order barring further defamatory content.
{{/usCountry}}Wikipedia, which was represented by senior advocate Akhil Sibal, had argued that the single judge grossly erred in granting reliefs which were not sought for in the petition and there was a substantial delay in filing the suit, as the content was existing since 2019.
{{/usCountry}}Wikipedia, which was represented by senior advocate Akhil Sibal, had argued that the single judge grossly erred in granting reliefs which were not sought for in the petition and there was a substantial delay in filing the suit, as the content was existing since 2019.
{{/usCountry}}Sibal further submitted that the platform was an intermediary, merely providing an open-source, user-generated platform and could not be held responsible for its content since it had no editorial control over its pages. He further submitted that the injunction was broad and open ended since the platform was an intermediary.
ANI represented by advocate Siddhant Kumar submitted that Wikipedia, despite claiming itself to be an intermediary, had failed to comply with the timeline laid down under the IT Rules, 2021 and did not have the right to contest the matter on merits.
In its order, the division bench also stayed a single judge’s order directing the platform to remove the protection status and restraining it from further publishing allegedly defamatory content.
The court said that since Wikipedia presented itself as an encyclopaedia, it was under a mandate to take a neutral stand with regards to its publications. However, a substantial portion of its content on the ANI’s page contained allegations including claims of “bias” and was a “bit too strong opinionated.”
“An online encyclopaedia has to have a neutral stance. Wikipedia has to have that standard of encyclopaedia. It can’t take sides. Wikipedia has to have that standard of an encyclopaedia. If you start taking sides, then it becomes some blog. The court has perused live website of Wikipedia’s ANI page which seems to suggest there is substantial content wherein allegations are raised against ANI such as bias etc. The capturing of such content would have a great impact on the readers online,” it said.
