In a significant development, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday slammed Wikipedia over the allegedly defamatory and non-neutral content on its page about Asian News International (ANI). The Court noted that Wikipedia must act like an encyclopedia, not an opinionated blog, and ordered the platform to take down the content referring to ANI as a “propaganda tool” for the Central government.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made strong oral observations during the hearing, stressing the importance of neutrality on a platform perceived widely as a source of general knowledge.
“Let’s be honest, we all refer to Wikipedia. I recall very clearly that when children are in high school, you can look at Wikipedia and teach children about it… The word ‘pedia’ comes from the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has to be very neutral. Wikipedia is doing a great service that way… If you start taking sides like this, then it becomes like any other blog,” remarked the Court.
WIKIPEDIA MUST COMPLY AS AN INTERMEDIARY, NOT ARGUE ON MERITS
The Court also questioned Wikipedia’s claim of being an intermediary under the IT Rules and held that once that claim is made, the platform cannot contest the case on its merits.
“You have already pleaded you are an intermediary. Under IT Rules, their job is only to give effect to what the court of law directs. You cannot defend it on merits. If you are an intermediary and the court directs you to take down, you cannot even argue on merits,” the Bench noted.
COURT MODIFIES EARLIER ORDER, BUT DEFAMATION MUST GO
While the Court modified an April 2 single-judge order, it upheld the need for removal of defamatory content from ANI’s Wikipedia page. Key directives include:
- Wikipedia must remove the defamatory content.
- ANI may notify Wikipedia of any future defamatory edits, which Wikipedia will have to remove.
- The previous direction to remove the edit protection status on the ANI page will remain.
WIKIPEDIA PAGE “OPINIONATED,” NOT BASED ON NEUTRAL SOURCES: COURT
The earlier order by Justice Subramonium Prasad had found Wikipedia’s ANI page in violation of its own neutrality guidelines.
“It appears that the statements on the page of the Plaintiff are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages. Defendant No.1 which is following the policy to avoid stating opinions as facts and also professing it to be an encyclopedia has to also see as to whether the opinions are actually based on the source articles or not so that neutral policy of Defendant No.1 is not violated,” the Court stated.
It further held:
“Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia), therefore, cannot completely wash its hands of the contents of the article on the ground that it is only an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statement that is published on its platform.”
WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT?
FOR WIKIPEDIA
- Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for Wikipedia and argued that:
- The ANI Wikipedia page has been largely unchanged since 2019.
- Wikipedia does not employ those who create or edit content.
- The injunction issued was overly broad.
FOR ANI:
- Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, submitted:
- Wikipedia failed to take action under the IT Rules, which mandate removal within 36 hours.
- If Wikipedia can edit or protect content, it cannot claim complete intermediary immunity.
- ANI had no objection if the page was restored to its pre-February 26, 2019 version.
WIKIPEDIA ORDERED TO IDENTIFY EDITORS, FACED CONTEMPT THREAT
Previously, in July 2024, the single-judge had:
Ordered Wikipedia to disclose the identities of three editors involved in altering ANI’s page.
Directed personal appearance of a Wikipedia representative.
Issued a contempt notice for non-compliance.
Wikipedia later appealed and reached a partial agreement with ANI to serve notices to the editors while protecting their anonymity.
HC ALSO ORDERS THE REMOVAL OF THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE IN CASE
The Division Bench also took objection to a Wikipedia entry titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation”, which detailed the ongoing legal case. The Court ordered the removal of that page as well.
Wikipedia has challenged this directive in the Supreme Court, and the matter is currently pending.
CONCLUSION
The Delhi High Court’s ruling underscores the growing responsibility of online platforms and intermediaries in India’s digital ecosystem. It reiterates that platforms like Wikipedia, though user-generated, must ensure neutrality, factual accuracy, and prompt compliance with Indian laws and court directions.
This case is being closely watched as it may set new precedents for digital accountability and content governance in India.
