Wikipedia vs ANI

The ongoing legal case involving Asian News International (ANI) and the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, has garnered significant attention. Initiated in July 2024, ANI’s defamation suit alleges that the Wikipedia page about the agency contains false and defamatory statements, characterising it as a “propaganda tool” for the Modi regime and accuses it of disseminating information from fake news sources.

In response, ANI seeks ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages from the ‘free encyclopedia’. The Delhi High Court, before whom the case is sub-judice, has been actively involved in issuing orders for the Wikimedia Foundation to disclose the identities of the editors responsible for the contested content. The court’s stern remarks, including threats to block Wikipedia in India if compliance is not met, highlight the tension between judicial authority and the platform’s open-editing model.

This case also raises critical questions about the responsibilities of online platforms as intermediaries under Indian law, particularly in light of the Information Technology (IT) Act’s safe harbour provisions. The court’s recent directive to remove the Wikipedia page discussing the ongoing case further complicates the situation, as it touches on issues of free speech and the integrity and transparency of judicial processes.

As the case unfolds, it is poised to set important precedents regarding the balance between protecting reputations and ensuring the free flow of information in the digital age of “New India”.

Jargon

defamation suit: A legal action taken by one party against another for making false statements that harm the reputation of the former. In this context, ANI is suing the Wikimedia Foundation for allegedly defamatory content on its Wikipedia page.
Wikimedia Foundation: The non-profit organisation that operates Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. It supports the community of volunteer editors who create and maintain content on Wikipedia.
open-editing model: A system that allows anyone to edit Wikipedia articles, promoting collaborative knowledge creation.
safe harbour protection: Legal immunity granted to online platforms, protecting them from liability for user-generated content, provided they do not actively control or edit that content.
sub judice principle: A legal doctrine that prohibits public discussion or commentary on ongoing court cases to avoid influencing the outcome. The Delhi High Court found that the Wikipedia page discussing the case violated this principle.

Viewpoints 💭

‘Left’ Viewpoint

Ideological Differences

‘Right’ Viewpoint

The left views the ANI lawsuit against Wikipedia as a threat to free speech and a potential precedent for censorship, undermining the democratic exchange of information.
They argue that the court’s demand for editor identities violates privacy and could deter volunteer contributions, crucial for Wikipedia’s community-driven model.
Leftists emphasise the importance of protecting platforms like Wikipedia that provide neutral, crowd-sourced information, which is essential for information democracy.
They criticise the court’s actions as indicative of a broader trend of increasing control over digital platforms and free expression by the government.
The left views the legal actions as an overreach that could lead to chilling effects on freedom of expression and press freedom in India.

While the left views the court’s demands as a threat to freedom of speech, the right sees them as essential for maintaining accountability and protecting reputations.
The left criticises the potential chilling effect on Wikipedia’s volunteer model, whereas the right argues for stricter regulation to prevent misinformation.
The left perceives the legal actions as part of a broader governmental overreach into digital freedoms, while the right supports these actions as necessary to uphold the rule of law.
The left emphasises the importance of platforms like Wikipedia for democratic information exchange, while the right focuses on the need for these platforms to respect national laws and cultural norms.
While the left is concerned about privacy violations and censorship, the right prioritises the need for transparency and accountability in content moderation.

The right supports ANI’s defamation suit, viewing Wikipedia’s portrayal of ANI as a government propaganda tool as a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.
They argue that Wikipedia’s open-editing model allows for the dissemination of biased content, which needs regulation to ensure accuracy and accountability.
The right emphasises the importance of protecting reputations and maintaining the rule of law, supporting the court’s demand for editor identities as necessary for accountability.
They see the court’s actions as a necessary step to curb the influence of foreign platforms that do not adhere to Indian laws and cultural sensitivities.
For the right, the case highlights the need for stricter regulation of digital platforms to prevent the spread of anti-national rhetoric and ensure compliance with Indian legal standards.

Prominent Voices 📣

From the ‘Left’

From the ‘Right’

Akhil Sibal (Senior Advocate for WMF): Expressed concern over the potential precedent set by the case and emphasised the importance of protecting privacy and freedom of speech, while acknowledging the necessity for corrective actions if required. ¹ ²
Amanda Keton (Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel): Raised concerns about the threat to freedom of expression due to India’s traceability requirements. ³
Tanveer Hasan (Executive Director at the Centre for Internet and Society): Viewed the restriction on Wikipedia as an indirect assault on freedom of speech under technological regulation. ⁴
Mishi Choudhary (Technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist): Highlighted the deviation from usual judicial approaches in ordering user identity disclosure without prima facie defamation, raising privacy and freedom of expression concerns. ⁵ ⁶
Pallavi Sondhi (Senior associate at technology and innovation law firm Ikigai Law): Questioned the sufficiency of grounds for the court’s blocking order against Wikipedia. ⁵

Nikhil Pahwa (Indian tech journalist and digital rights activist): Criticised the court’s order to take down the Wikipedia page, emphasising its chilling effect on speech and public information access. ⁵ ⁷
Pranav Bhaskar Tiwari (Senior Program Manager at The Dialogue): Warned that questioning editors could lead to self-censorship, affecting both editors’ and readers’ rights to free speech and information. ⁴

Show less

ANI (News Agency): Argued that Wikipedia’s description of them as a propaganda tool damaged their reputation, prompting legal action. ⁸
Rajeev Chandrasekhar (Former Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology): Criticised Wikipedia for content vandalism and emphasised the need for intermediaries to be more responsible for content on their platforms, aligning with the proposed Digital India Bill. ⁹ ¹⁰
Tuhin A. Sinha (BJP spokesperson): Framed the legal action against Wikipedia as a fight against perceived Western bias and aimed to ensure compliance with Indian laws. ³