SC sets aside HC takedown order in ANI-Wikipedia defamation case
Wikimedia Foundation Inc, which operates Wikipedia, had challenged the Delhi High Court’s April 8 order upholding a single judge’s April 2 directive to remove content about ANI within 36 hours.
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside Delhi High Court orders directing Wikipedia to remove content about Asian News International (ANI), allowing the news agency to approach the high court afresh with specific defamatory claims.
A bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka, which included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that the previous orders were “broadly worded” and “not capable of being specifically implemented”.
“We set aside the impugned orders and allow the respondent to approach the single judge for grant of specific injunction citing specific defamatory statements,” the bench directed, adding that the matter should be considered “on its own merits without being influenced by this order”.
Wikimedia Foundation Inc, which operates Wikipedia, had challenged the Delhi High Court’s April 8 order upholding a single judge’s April 2 directive to remove content about ANI within 36 hours.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, argued that as an intermediary, his client could not be held responsible for user-generated content. He contended that allegations of “false, misleading and defamatory” content required proper adjudication before any takedown order.
The bench noted there was “no clarity on the issue of who will decide whether the contents are false, misleading and defamatory”.
The bench was initially inclined to stay the order but asked ANI’s counsel if the agency was willing to approach the HC for fresh proceedings – a suggestion the lawyer, Sidhant Kumar Marwah, indicated willingness for.
“Leaving all issues to be considered by the single judge, the court further clarified, “The matter shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by this order.”
Marwah had pointed out that the news agency objected to Wikipedia content describing it as “a propaganda tool for the incumbent government”. The court observed that Wikipedia claimed the text was added by another user, and emphasised that even injunctions require determining what constitutes false or defamatory content.
“Who will decide what is false and what is defamatory...It cannot be ANI,” the bench remarked, suggesting the news agency should “confine yourself to specific portions” in seeking fresh interim relief.
Close to the concluding moments of the hearing, ANI’s lawyer commented on Wikipedia getting a quick hearing within a day of filing its appeal on April 16. Sibal objected to the insinuation, explaining they had submitted an urgency letter due to the 36-hour compliance deadline.
The bench sharply rebuked ANI’s counsel, saying, “If you are saying that we have listed this matter on our own, then have the courage to take it up with the Chief Justice of India and complain that certain matters are taken up on priority.... Making allegations that we have done something won’t help.”
The Delhi HC division bench of Justices Pratibha M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta had previously ruled that Wikipedia was obligated under the Information Technology Rules, 2021 to remove “false” or “misleading” content by showing due diligence under Rule 3 of the Rules. The high court had held that intermediaries must take down content when directed by courts.
The earlier April 2 order by the single judge had held that Wikipedia has fiduciary responsibilities and obligations to prevent defamation and cannot evade accountability by claiming to host third-party content.
