New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice on a contempt plea filed by ANI Media Private Limited, accusing Wikipedia of non-compliance with a judicial order. The court had previously directed Wikipedia to disclose information about individuals who edited ANI's Wikipedia page.

Justice Navin Chawla, presiding over the case, strongly objected to the submission by Wikipedia's counsel, who stated that the platform had taken time to respond as it was not based in India. The court reacted sharply, remarking, "We will not take it any more. If you don't like India, don't work here."

The contempt plea follows a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikipedia over allegedly defamatory content published on the news agency’s Wikipedia page. On August 20, Wikipedia appeared in court in response to the summons. ANI contends that Wikipedia acknowledged three individuals, named as defendants in the defamation suit, were not administrators on the platform.

Based on this admission, the court directed Wikipedia to disclose subscriber details of these individuals to ANI within two weeks. ANI later filed the contempt plea, alleging that Wikipedia failed to comply with the court's order. During the hearing, Justice Chawla issued a warning, stating that the court may ask Wikipedia to shut down its operations in India and could request the government to block access to the platform. The court has now summoned Wikipedia's authorized representative to appear personally at the next hearing.

ANI's legal action seeks to restrain Wikipedia from publishing defamatory content on its page, remove the existing content, and pay Rs. 2 crore in damages. The news agency’s Wikipedia page describes ANI as “a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government” and accuses it of misreporting events and distributing materials from fake news websites.

ANI’s suit against the Wikimedia Foundation claims that false and defamatory content was published with malicious intent to tarnish its reputation. ANI also alleges that Wikimedia officials actively participated in removing edits that reversed the defamatory content, thus breaching its safe-harbour protection under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)

TAGS