'Not Court's Role To Ask Media To Delete Content': SC On ANI Vs Wikipedia Defamation Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday overruled a Delhi High Court judgement directing the online encyclopedia, Wikimedia foundation, to take down a Wikipedia page regarding news agency ANI in connection with a legal dispute.
The High Court on April 2 directed Wikipedia to remove the alleged defamatory content regarding the news agency on its online page. While hearing the case, the High Court had last year issued a contempt notice to Wikipedia following claims by ANI that the platform had failed to comply with previous orders to reveal the identities of subscribers who made allegedly defamatory edits to ANI’s Wikipedia page.
Read Also: 4 Wikipedia Editors Booked For “Objectionable” Content On Sambhaji Maharaj: Report
Notably, while hearing the case on Friday, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that it is not the court’s role to instruct the media to remove content. The judge pointed out that both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy, Bar and Bench reports.
In its defamation suit in June last year, ANI had alleged that the Wikipedia page contained defamatory content. On its page, Wikipedia quoted The Caravan and The Ken, describing the agency as “producing blatant propaganda for the state.” Furthermore, citing an EU DisinfoLab investigation in an extensive report, Wikipedia stated that ANI was “amplifying a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government, anti-Pakistan, and anti-China propaganda.” In its defamation plea, the news agency had demanded Rs 2 crore in damages.
Read Also: IIT Delhi To Organise Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon For Gender Equity And Sensitisation
However, the top court said that the Delhi High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing such an order, adding that it is not for the courts to tell the media what to delete or take down.
The Supreme Court further noted that the Courts are public institutions and must welcome debate and constructive criticism, and that the judges must not respond, underlining that the judiciary and the media should support one another in a liberal democracy.
