Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by ANI Media Pvt Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking an injunction to restrain the posting or sharing of any false, misleading, or defamatory content about it on any platform, including Wikipedia (Defendant 1), to direct the removal of such content already published, to prevent users and administrators from posting defamatory material in the future, to lift the edit restrictions placed on ANI’s Wikipedia page, and to disclose the identities and contact details of Defendants 2 to 4. Subramonium Prasad, J., restrained Defendant 1, its users, and administrators from publishing or republishing any defamatory material against the plaintiff on the platform and directed defendant 1, along with any person acting on its behalf or under its authority to take down all false, misleading, and defamatory content related to the plaintiff from its platform, as such content has the potential to harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
The plaintiff popularly known as Asian News International, is India’s leading multimedia news agency. Established in 1971, the plaintiff has been operational for over five decades and provides syndicated news content through more than a hundred bureaus worldwide. It is a trusted source of news for various media outlets in India and abroad. The Defendant 1 is a non-profit and charitable organization incorporated under the laws of the United States of America. It is responsible for maintaining the English-language Wikipedia platform, a freely accessible and collaborative online encyclopedia that hosts over 6.8 million articles. The Defendants No. 2 to 4 are administrators of this platform, having specialized access and editorial rights, including the power to edit, block, or unblock content on Wikipedia.
In 2006, a Wikipedia page dedicated to the plaintiff was created. Initially, the page contained neutral and fact-based content, sourced from reputable websites. This state of the page remained largely unchanged until February 2019, when the Plaintiff alleged that defamatory content began to surface through edits made by Defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff contended that these edits introduced false, misleading, and defamatory remarks, which now constitute a major portion of the Wikipedia page and are accessible to the global public.
In April 2024, certain users attempted to correct the allegedly defamatory content by relying on credible sources such as The BBC Network. However, in May 2024, the plaintiff claims that the same administrators reverted these edits and reinstated the disputed content. To make matters worse, on 27-05-2024, Defendant 2 allegedly imposed a “protection status” on the plaintiff’s page, effectively locking it from public editing or updates for an indefinite period.
On 13-06-2024, the plaintiff served a cease-and-desist notice on the defendants, demanding the removal of defamatory content and requesting compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which require intermediaries to act upon harmful content. However, no corrective action was taken.
The plaintiff asserted that the Wikipedia page currently hosts multiple defamatory allegations, including acting at the behest of the Government of India and the BJP, being a propaganda tool or mouthpiece of the ruling party, engaging in low-quality journalism resulting in loss of subscriptions, disseminating fake or false news and mistreating its employees. Despite raising concerns and requesting corrections, the allegedly defamatory content continues to remain live on the platform, prompting the plaintiff to approach the the Court seeking urgent relief and protection of its reputation.
The Court observed that defendant 1, though claiming to be an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, cannot entirely evade responsibility for defamatory content published on its platform. Given that Wikipedia is viewed as an encyclopedia and its content is often accepted as factual by the public, the Court emphasized that Defendant 1 bears a higher fiduciary responsibility to prevent defamation. While examining the plaintiff’s request for pre-trial ad-interim injunction, the Court reiterated that the grant of such relief in a defamation suit requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm to be established. The Court noted that Defendants 2 to 4 were served notice but failed to appear or file any reply.
Upon reviewing the Wikipedia content policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, the Court found that the impugned statements on the Plaintiff’s page were largely sourced from editorials and opinion pieces, which violates the platform’s neutrality policy. These statements were not faithful reproductions of the cited articles and appeared to distort the original intent, thereby rendering them ex-facie defamatory and harmful to the Plaintiff’s reputation. Regarding the Single Publication Rule, the Court concluded that it does not apply in the present case since the impugned statements were not verbatim reproductions but twisted interpretations lacking proper context. The Court, relying on Khawar Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4474, noted that the ‘Single Publication Rule’ applies only when the second publication is a verbatim copy of the first. Upon reviewing the cited articles, the Court found that the impugned statements on the Plaintiff’s Wikipedia page were not exact reproductions and were contrary to the original articles’ intent. These statements lacked proper context and, in the Court’s opinion, were ex-facie defamatory, harming the Plaintiff’s professional reputation. The Court also found that the protection status imposed on the plaintiff’s Wikipedia page by Defendant 1 unfairly restricted the plaintiff’s ability to respond or correct the content.
Consequently, the Court allowed the plaintiff’s application and directed the removal of defamatory content and lifting the protection status from the Plaintiff’s Wikipedia page.
[ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2134, decided on 02-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Om Batra, Mr. Akshit Mago and Ms. Anshika Saxena, Advocates for Plaintiff;
Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tine Abraham, Mr. Nikhil Narendran, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhijnan Jha, Ms. Shivani Rawat, Mr. Thomas J. Vallianeth, Mr. Aayush Marwah, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Mr. Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Mr. Bakhshind Singh, Mr. Pranav Tomar, Ms. Jasleen Virk, Ms. Diva Saigal, Advocates for Defendant 1.
