The Delhi High Court has taken a firm stance against the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates Wikipedia, for its failure to comply with a court order relating to a defamation suit filed by Indian news agency Asian News International (ANI). The lawsuit centers on allegedly defamatory content published on ANI’s Wikipedia page, and the court’s growing impatience with Wikimedia’s non-compliance has resulted in serious warnings, including potential legal action and the threat of blocking Wikipedia’s operations in India.
The legal battle began when ANI sued Wikimedia over what it claims to be defamatory edits made to its Wikipedia page. ANI has alleged that these edits portrayed the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the Indian government, which the agency argues is damaging to its reputation. The lawsuit seeks to prevent further publication of such content and demands the removal of the existing defamatory edits. ANI has also sought ₹2 crore in damages from Wikimedia for the harm caused by these edits, contending that Wikimedia should have taken steps to prevent these harmful edits from being published and now must disclose the identities of the individuals responsible for them. The court has set the next hearing for October and has ordered Wikimedia to ensure that an authorized representative is present in person to address the matter.
The Delhi High Court had previously issued an order directing Wikimedia to disclose information about three individuals who were responsible for the controversial edits. These individuals, named as defendants in the defamation suit, are accused of making edits that painted ANI in a negative light. ANI claims that despite the court’s instructions, Wikimedia has failed to provide the necessary details, leading the news agency to file a contempt petition against the platform.
Wikimedia has defended its position by arguing that the platform does not directly control the content published on Wikipedia. As a “technology host,” the Wikimedia Foundation does not create or edit the material available on its site. Instead, Wikipedia’s content is generated by a global community of volunteer editors who compile and share information on a wide range of subjects. However, the court has shown little patience with this defense. Justice Chawla remarked that the argument had been raised and rejected in previous hearings, warning Wikimedia that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and the possible shutdown of its operations in India.
“We will not take it anymore,” Justice Chawla said during the hearing. “If you don’t like India, don’t work here.” The judge further threatened to impose contempt charges on Wikimedia and hinted that the court would ask the Indian government to block Wikipedia’s website in the country if the foundation continued to defy the court’s orders. If the court follows through on its warning to block Wikipedia’s operations in India, it would mark a significant shift in the relationship between global technology platforms and Indian regulatory authorities. The Indian government has, in recent years, become increasingly assertive in its dealings with international digital platforms, demanding greater accountability and compliance with local laws.
The court has ordered Wikimedia to disclose subscriber information for the three individuals responsible for the edits within a specific time frame. This information is crucial for ANI’s defamation case, as the news agency seeks to hold these individuals accountable for the alleged defamatory content. Despite Wikimedia’s assertions that it is merely a host and not responsible for the actions of its editors, the court has insisted on compliance with its orders.
