Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation#Lawsuit article's takedown proceedings

{{Infobox court case

| name = Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

| full name = ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors.{{cite web |title=CS(OS) 524/2024 |url=https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1220662 |website=Delhi High Court |access-date=12 October 2024 |archive-date=6 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240906084430/https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1220662 |url-status=live }}

| court = Delhi High Court

| judges = {{ubl|Navin Chawla|Manmohan|Tushar Rao Gedela|Subramonium Prasad|Prathiba Singh|Rajneesh Kumar Gupta|Jyoti Singh|A. S. Oka|Ujjal Bhuyan}}

| keywords = {{hlist|Civil defamation}}

| caption = Emblem of India

}}

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (CS(OS) 524/2024) is an ongoing civil defamation case in India.

ANI Media Private Limited, the parent company of news agency Asian News International (ANI), filed a {{INR|2 crore|link=yes}} (approximately US$240,000) defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) over the description of ANI in the English Wikipedia article about the news agency.

The judge in the case, Justice Navin Chawla, warned that the court could order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country. Critics have characterised the judge's order directing WMF to release the identities of the editors who made the edits as censorship and a threat to the flow of information.{{Cite web |last=Lobo |first=Simone |date=10 October 2024 |title=ANI case: How Delhi HC's Wikipedia ban threat affects India |url=https://www.medianama.com/2024/10/223-video-delhi-hc-action-wikipedia-ani-defamation-lawsuit-affect-india/#:~:text=ANI%20filed%20a%20defamation%20lawsuit,for%20them,%E2%80%9D%20Pahwa%20said.&text=If%20playback%20doesn't%20begin%20shortly,%20try%20restarting%20your%20device. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240919042704/https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-case-wikipedia-india-challenge-freedom-speech-information-9572234/ |archive-date=2024-09-19 |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=MediaNama |language=en-US}}

Following a Delhi High Court warning in October 2024 that the article may violate sub judice rules and a subsequent takedown order, the WMF suspended access to the English Wikipedia article "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation", blocking it from view for both readers and editors of the online encyclopedia. However, access was restored on 9 May 2025, following a WMF appeal and a Supreme Court of India ruling in their favour.

Background

= Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia =

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is the non-profit organisation that supports Wikipedia, in multiple languages, and multiple other similar projects. Each project is independent and largely self-governed; the WMF exerts limited authority over any project, and typically remains uninvolved with content policy.{{Cite web |date=9 July 2024 |title=Delhi HC Issues Notice To Wikipedia After ANI's Plea |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/national/delhi-hc-issues-notice-to-wikipedia-over-allowing-defamatory-edits-to-ani-page |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240914224521/https://www.outlookindia.com/national/delhi-hc-issues-notice-to-wikipedia-over-allowing-defamatory-edits-to-ani-page |archive-date=2024-09-14 |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=Outlook India |language=en}}{{cite AV media |date=18 September 2024 |title=Explained: What's ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about? |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc |work=Newslaundry |via=YouTube |access-date=10 October 2024 |archive-date=23 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240923055511/https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=gtslJZ5CT76-4tZv&v=rgW2Xkz21Wc |url-status=live }} The presence of Wikipedia in India includes Wikipedia's interaction with India's media environment, the people who edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's popularity among readers.{{cite book |last1=Gautam |first1=John |editor1-last=Lovink |editor1-first=Geert |editor1-link=Geert Lovink |editor2-last=Tkacz |editor2-first=Nathaniel |editor2-link=Nathaniel Tkacz |title=Critical point of view : a Wikipedia reader |url=https://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/critical-point-of-view-a-wikipedia-reader/ |date=2011 |publisher=Institute of Network Cultures |isbn=978-90-78146-13-1 |pages=283–287 |chapter=Wikipedia in India: Past, Present, Future |access-date=16 October 2024 |archive-date=12 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240912061303/https://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/critical-point-of-view-a-wikipedia-reader/ |url-status=live }}

Wikipedia is created and maintained completely by volunteer "editors", its term for anyone who makes as much a single typo correction on an article. Hundreds of thousands of such editors exist worldwide, and most can make changes to most articles on the website. A smaller number of editors make enough edits that they are allowed to edit nearly any article.{{cite news |last1=Hafner |first1=Katie |date=17 June 2006 |title=Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221212184025/https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html |archive-date=12 December 2022 |access-date=5 December 2016 |work=The New York Times}} Editors are pseudonymous, except those who voluntarily disclose their identities.

Wikipedia articles generally are protected if the article is experiencing a high level of vandalism or an edit war, a series of back-and-forth reversions between two or more versions by two or more editors. In 2020, the article about news agency Asian News International was edited to include content from new sources discussing the agency's record, and an edit war ensued – involving new editors making the same changes to remove the new additions – and the article was eventually protected.

= Defamation in India =

In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law, or both.{{cite news |last=Swamy |first=Subramanian |date=21 September 2004 |title=Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit |url=http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/21/stories/2004092103551000.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130722120816/http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/21/stories/2004092103551000.htm |archive-date=22 July 2013 |access-date=28 November 2013 |newspaper=The Hindu}} According to the Constitution of India, the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to "reasonable restrictions".{{Cite news |last=Vishwanath |first=Apurva |date=9 November 2022 |title=First amendment to Constitution challenged: What happened in SC in 1950 that provoked Nehru to amend Article 19(2)? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/first-amendment-to-constitution-challenged-supreme-court-8252509/ |access-date=18 October 2024 |work=The Indian Express |archive-date=2 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240702092218/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/first-amendment-to-constitution-challenged-supreme-court-8252509/ |url-status=live }}

= Safe Harbour in India =

The Safe Harbour clause of Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000, comparable to Section 230 of Communications Act of 1934 in the United States, exempts online platforms from any legal liability for third-party content generated by its users and hosted by the platform, subject to several conditions.{{Cite web |last=Khan |first=Khadija |date=10 July 2024 |title=Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/ |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=The Indian Express |language=en |archive-date=6 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240906040401/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=Explained: 'Safe Harbour' Clause And Why Government Wants It Gone |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/government-may-remove-safe-harbour-provision-in-it-act-2000-what-is-the-clause-3848752 |website=NDTV |date=2023-03-10 |access-date=2024-10-17 |archive-date=27 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240927121711/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/government-may-remove-safe-harbour-provision-in-it-act-2000-what-is-the-clause-3848752 |url-status=live }} In February 2021, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government introduced amendments to the IT Act, imposing stricter obligations on intermediaries, including requiring them to proactively monitor content for illegal or harmful activity.{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Abhishek Nath Tripathi & Narayan |date=2021-06-08 |title=Intermediary Status: Socially Available, Legally Endangered |url=https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/intermediary-status-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-175377 |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en |archive-date=24 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210624052117/https://livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/intermediary-status-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-175377 |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |date=2021-05-27 |title=Explained: Social media and safe harbour |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/intermediary-guidelines-digital-media-ethics-code-facebook-twitter-instagram-7331820/ |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=The Indian Express |language=en |archive-date=22 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231122102341/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/intermediary-guidelines-digital-media-ethics-code-facebook-twitter-instagram-7331820/ |url-status=live }}

Court case

= Defamation suit =

The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors.{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2024-07-09 |title=ANI Files Rs 2 Crore Defamation Suit Against Wikipedia Before Delhi High Court, Summons Issued |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-wikipedia-defamation-262700 |url-access=subscription |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=LiveLaw |language=en |archive-date=9 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240709082832/https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-wikipedia-defamation-262700 |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Parasnis |first=Sharveya |date=10 July 2024 |title=ANI Sues Wikipedia for Defamation, Demands INR 2 Crore |url=https://www.medianama.com/2024/07/223-ani-sues-wikipedia-defamation-demands-rs-2-crore/ |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=MediaNama |language=en-US |archive-date=10 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240910220042/https://www.medianama.com/2024/07/223-ani-sues-wikipedia-defamation-demands-rs-2-crore/ |url-status=live }} At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about Asian News International (ANI) said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions".{{Cite news |date=5 September 2024 |title=Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-high-court-cautions-wikipedia-for-non-compliance-of-order/article68610761.ece |url-access=registration |access-date=10 October 2024 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X |archive-date=14 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240914011253/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-high-court-cautions-wikipedia-for-non-compliance-of-order/article68610761.ece |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |last=Deep |first=Aroon |date=12 July 2024 |title=Content determined by volunteer editors, says Wikipedia parent |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/wikipedia-parent-responds-ani-defamation-suit-says-content-by-volunteer-editors/article68395472.ece |url-access=registration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240923133852/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/wikipedia-parent-responds-ani-defamation-suit-says-content-by-volunteer-editors/article68395472.ece |archive-date=2024-09-23 |access-date=10 October 2024 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X}}

The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill". It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content.{{cite web |last1=Singh |first1=Abhinav |date=2024-09-05 |title='Please don't work in India if...': Indian court reprimands Wikipedia for not obeying orders |url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/please-dont-work-in-india-indian-court-schools-wikipedia-for-not-obeying-orders-756220 |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=WION |language=en-us |archive-date=5 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240905175145/https://www.wionews.com/india-news/please-dont-work-in-india-indian-court-schools-wikipedia-for-not-obeying-orders-756220 |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |date=9 July 2024 |title=News agency ANI files Rs 2 crore defamation suit against Wikipedia in Delhi High Court |url=https://www.deccanherald.com/business/companies/news-agency-ani-files-rs-2-crore-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia-in-delhi-high-court-3098159#google_vignette |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240906165138/https://www.deccanherald.com/business/companies/news-agency-ani-files-rs-2-crore-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia-in-delhi-high-court-3098159#google_vignette |archive-date=6 September 2024 |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=Deccan Herald |language=en}}

ANI asked for {{INR|2 crore|link=yes}} (approximately US$240,000) in damages and an injunction against Wikipedia "making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI". It also argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media "intermediary" within the definition of Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000, and must therefore comply with the requirements of the Act, including taking down any content that the government or its agencies deem violative, or be personally liable for content published under its platform.

= Defamation suit proceedings =

Chawla issued a summons to WMF and set a hearing date of 20 August 2024.{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=9 July 2024 |title=ANI files defamation suit against Wikipedia, seeks Rs 2 cr in damages |url=https://www.siasat.com/ani-files-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia-seeks-rs-2-cr-in-damages-3058599/ |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=The Siasat Daily |language=en |archive-date=9 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240709090900/https://www.siasat.com/ani-files-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia-seeks-rs-2-cr-in-damages-3058599/ |url-status=live }} On 20 August, Chawla ordered WMF to disclose identifying details of three editors who had worked on the Wikipedia article about ANI – also defendants in the lawsuit – within two weeks, so that ANI can pursue legal action against them as individuals.{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Nishant |date=17 September 2024 |title=Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-case-wikipedia-india-challenge-freedom-speech-information-9572234/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240919042704/https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-case-wikipedia-india-challenge-freedom-speech-information-9572234/ |archive-date=2024-09-19 |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}{{cite news |title=Delhi HC issues contempt notice to Wikipedia, warns of blocking website in country |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/delhi-hc-issues-contempt-notice-to-wikipedia-warns-of-blocking-website-in-country/articleshow/113115162.cms?from=mdr |date=2024-09-06 |work=The Economic Times |access-date=10 October 2024 |issn=0013-0389 |archive-date=6 October 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241006011434/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/delhi-hc-issues-contempt-notice-to-wikipedia-warns-of-blocking-website-in-country/articleshow/113115162.cms?from=mdr |url-status=live }}

On 5 September 2024, ANI asked the court to hold WMF in contempt when the identifying details were not released. Chawla complied and warned WMF that the court could order the government of India to block Wikipedia in the country, saying "We will not take it any more. If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will close your business transactions here."{{Cite web |last=Krishna |first=Yadav |date=5 September 2024 |title=Delhi HC warns Wikipedia over ANI defamation case, issues contempt notice |url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/delhi-hc-warns-wikipedia-over-ani-defamation-case-issues-contempt-notice-11725517336837.html |url-status=live |archive-date=2024-09-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240927070017/https://www.livemint.com/news/india/delhi-hc-warns-wikipedia-over-ani-defamation-case-issues-contempt-notice-11725517336837.html |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=Mint}}{{Cite news |date=12 September 2024 |title=ANI vs Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia's impact on India and more |url=https://www.thehindu.com/data/ani-vs-wikipedia-free-encyclopedias-impact-on-india-despite-high-court-defamation-suit/article68630349.ece |url-access=subscription |access-date=10 October 2024 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X |archive-date=10 October 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241010070232/https://www.thehindu.com/data/ani-vs-wikipedia-free-encyclopedias-impact-on-india-despite-high-court-defamation-suit/article68630349.ece |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |last=Deep |first=Aroon |date=10 September 2024 |title=On ANI's defamation suit against Wikipedia {{!}} Explained |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ani-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia/article68627535.ece |url-access=registration |access-date=10 October 2024 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X |archive-date=5 October 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241005022343/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ani-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia/article68627535.ece |url-status=live }} He further ordered that an "authorised representative" of WMF appear in person at the next hearing, which was scheduled for 25 October 2024.{{Cite web |last=Jha |first=Prashant |date=5 September 2024 |title="Will ask government to block you": Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/will-ask-government-to-block-wikipedia-delhi-high-court-contempt-court-notice |url-access=subscription |access-date=10 October 2024 |website=Bar and Bench |language=en}} In response, Wikimedia emphasised that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources and their delay stemmed from being based in a foreign country.{{Cite web |last=Bhalla |first=Vineet |date=2024-10-19 |title=Why Delhi HC is angry with Wikipedia for calling ANI a 'government propaganda tool' |url=https://scroll.in/article/1074580/why-delhi-hc-is-angry-with-wikipedia-for-calling-ani-a-government-propaganda-tool |access-date=2024-10-19 |website=Scroll.in |language=en}}

Days later, the WMF appealed Chawla's order, petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before asking for disclosure. On 14 October, a bench – comprising justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela – heard the appeal; they said that Wikipedia's portrayal of ANI was potentially defamatory and therefore must be defended by the editors in question. They also characterised Wikipedia's refusal to divulge the identifying details as "extremely disturbing" and warned that WMF would lose its safe harbour protection under the IT Act if it chose to defend the allegations of defamation.{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Bhavini |date=14 October 2024 |title=Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-slams-wikipedia-refusal-divulge-identity-those-edited-ani-page |url-access=subscription |access-date=14 October 2024 |website=Bar and Bench |language=en}}{{cite web |title=ANI versus Wikipedia: What is at stake? |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/ani-versus-wikipedia-what-is-at-stake |website=Bar and Bench |date=2024-10-20 |last1=Ahsan |first1=Sofi |access-date=2024-10-20 |language=en}}

On 28{{nbsp}}October, the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the court's request to disclose the identifying information of online users involved in editing the ANI page.{{Cite web |last=Rahman |first=Shaikh Azizur |date=2024-11-03 |title=Wikipedia embroiled in legal battle in India |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241110041949/https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html |archive-date=10 November 2024 |access-date=2024-11-10 |website=Voice of America |language=en}} An arrangement was reached in the High Court on 11{{nbsp}}November to have the Foundation serving the summons papers to the involved users as an intermediary while disclosing the email identities of the users under sealed cover to the judge, which would still protect the privacy of the individuals for the time being.{{cite web |last1=Srivastava |first1=Bhavini |date=2024-11-11 |title=Delhi High Court allows Wikipedia to serve summons on users in ANI's defamation suit |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-allows-wikipedia-serve-summons-users-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2024-11-19 |website=Bar and Bench |language=en}}{{cite web |last1=Srivastava |first1=Bhavini |date=2024-11-14 |title=Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users in ANI's defamation suit |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-issues-summons-wikipedia-users-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2024-11-19 |website=Bar and Bench |language=en}}

On 2{{nbsp}}April 2025, the Delhi High Court granted the interim injunction in favour of ANI and ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content, remove the article's protected status, and "restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency".{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2025-04-02 |title=Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Allegedly Defamatory Description Of ANI On Its Wikipedia Page |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-defamatory-wikipedia-page-removal-288188 |access-date=2025-04-02 |website=Live Law |language=en}} An appeal of the order was denied on 8 April by a division bench, though it slightly revised the order.{{cite news |title=Remove defamatory content about ANI, Delhi HC tells Wikipedia |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/remove-defamatory-content-about-ani-delhi-hc-tells-wikipedia/article69427896.ece |date=2025-04-08 |work=The Hindu |access-date=10 April 2025 |language=en-IN |archive-date=9 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250409204048/https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/remove-defamatory-content-about-ani-delhi-hc-tells-wikipedia/article69427896.ece |url-status=live }} The Foundation subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India over the 2 April and 8 April orders. The Supreme Court heard the case on 17 April, and decided to set aside the 2 April and 8 April orders as they were "broadly worded" and could not be implemented. In the same decision, ANI was granted a relief to refile the interim application before a single-judge back in the high court.{{cite web |title='Broadly Worded': Supreme Court Quashes HC Order Asking Wikipedia to Remove Content on ANI |url=https://thewire.in/law/broadly-worded-supreme-court-quashes-hc-order-asking-wikipedia-to-remove-content-on-ani |website=The Wire |date=2025-04-17 |access-date=2025-05-09 |language=en}} On 8 May, the Foundation withdrew its appeal with the division bench after the Supreme Court's decision.{{cite web |title=Wikipedia withdraws appeal against ANI in Delhi High Court after Supreme Court relief |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/wikipedia-withdraws-appeal-against-ani-delhi-high-court-after-supreme-court-relief |website=Bar and Bench |date=2025-05-08 |last1=Srivastava |first1=Bhavini |access-date=2025-05-09 |language=en}}

On 9 May 2025, after ANI had filed a fresh application for interim relief pursuant to the Supreme Court order, the second proceeding was heard in front of Justice Jyoti Singh. The case was adjourned to be heard on 7 July after WMF's senior advocate Akhil Sibal requested for more time.{{cite web |title=Second round of ANI vs. Wikipedia begins before Delhi High Court |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/second-round-of-ani-vs-wikipedia-begins-before-delhi-high-court |website=Bar and Bench |date=2025-05-09 |last1=Srivastava |first1=Bhavini |access-date=2025-05-09 |language=en}}

Lawsuit article's takedown proceedings

File:English Wikipedia screenshot - Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation - suspended access.png when access to the article was suspended.|upright=2]]

On 14 October, the judges further objected to the creation of {{this article}} about the defamation case, alleging interference with "a sub-judice matter" and took particular umbrage at the article mentioning criticism of Chawla's order.{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2024-10-14 |title=Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-wikipedia-ani-defamation-cant-threaten-judge-272349 |url-access=subscription |access-date=14 October 2024 |website=LiveLaw |language=en}} Later that week, the court passed an order directing all "pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge [Chawla] as well as discussion of the observations of division bench [Manmohan and Gedela]" to be "taken down or deleted within 36 hours".{{Cite news |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2024-10-16 |title='Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/prima-facie-contemptuous-delhi-high-court-orders-deletion-of-wikipedia-page-on-pending-defamation-suit-by-ani-272578 |url-access=subscription |access-date=16 October 2024 |work=LiveLaw |language=en}}{{cite news |title=ANI vs Wikipedia defamation case: Delhi High Court orders Wikimedia to take down ANI page within 36 hours |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ani-vs-wikipedia-defamation-case-delhi-high-court-orders-wikimedia-to-take-down-ani-page-within-36-hours/article68759850.ece |access-date=16 October 2024 |work=The Hindu |date=16 October 2024 |language=en-IN}}{{cite web |title=Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to take down page on ongoing case filed by ANI |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-orders-wikipedia-take-down-page-ongoing-case-filed-by-ani |website=Bar and Bench |date=2024-10-16 |last1=Srivastava |first1=Bhavini |url-access=subscription |access-date=17 October 2024}}

On 18 October, ANI asked the court to seek contempt proceedings against the WMF for not taking down {{this article}}, since the 36-hour deadline had not been complied with.{{cite news |last1=Kakkar |first1=Shruti |date=18 October 2024 |title=ANI asks HC to initate contempt case against Wikipedia, says 36 hr deadline over |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ani-asks-hc-to-initate-contempt-case-against-wikipedia-says-36-hr-deadline-over-101729248084461.html |access-date=18 October 2024 |work=Hindustan Times}}

As a result, on 21 October 2024, the WMF removed access to the Wikipedia article "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation", blocking it from view for both readers and editors of the online encyclopedia, following a Delhi High Court warning that the article may violate sub judice rules.{{Cite news |last=Deep |first=Aroon |date=2024-10-21 |title=Wikipedia suspends page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece |access-date=2025-05-09 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X}}

On 17{{nbsp}}March 2025, a two-judge bench, consisting of A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea filed by WMF against the article takedown order by the Delhi High Court. They noted the matter involved freedom of media and questioned the High Court on why it was "so touchy" about the subject.{{cite web |last1=Jamal |first1=Ummar |date=2025-03-17 |title=Courts have to be tolerant: Supreme Court on Delhi HC's takedown order against Wikipedia in ANI case |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/courts-have-to-tolerant-supreme-court-delhi-hc-takedown-order-against-wikipedia-ani-case |access-date=17 March 2025 |website=Bar and Bench}} The panel questioned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that judges and courts should be more tolerant of criticism; requiring the removal of content because of criticism may not be correct. The judges also stated that the order was about press freedom broadly and said it was "ironical" that ANI, an organisation reliant on press freedom, is trying to censor content on Wikipedia.{{cite web |date=2025-03-18 |title=SC slams Delhi HC order directing Wikipedia to remove ANI defamation case page |url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/sc-slams-delhi-hc-order-directing-wikipedia-to-remove-ani-defamation-case-page |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=The News Minute |language=en |archive-date=15 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250415204717/https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/sc-slams-delhi-hc-order-directing-wikipedia-to-remove-ani-defamation-case-page |url-status=live }}{{cite web |date=2025-03-17 |title=Supreme Court questions legality of Delhi HC's order directing removal of Wikipedia page on ANI defamation suit |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Mar/17/supreme-court-questions-legality-of-delhi-hcs-order-directing-removal-of-wikipedia-page-on-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=The New Indian Express |language=en}}{{cite web |last1=Sharma |first1=Aditya |date=2025-03-19 |title=ANI vs. Wikipedia Legal Battle Explained |url=https://thephilox.com/ani-vs-wikipedia-legal-battle-explained/ |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=The Philox |language=en-US}} On 9 May 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's decision to take down the article about the defamation case{{cite news |title=Win for Wikipedia as Supreme Court quashes Delhi High Court's order to takedown page on ANI v Wiki case |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-delhi-high-court-takedown-ani-wikipedia-page |date=2025-05-09 |work=Bar and Bench |last1=Roy |first1=Debayan |access-date=2025-05-09 |language=en}}{{Cite news |last=Chaturvedi |first=Arpan |date=9 May 2025 |title=India Supreme Court reverses content takedown order against Wikipedia operator |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-supreme-court-reverses-content-takedown-order-against-wikipedia-operator-2025-05-09/ |work=Reuters}} and access to the article was restored on the same day.{{Cite web |title=Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation: Difference between revisions |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1289637014 |access-date=2025-05-10 |website=English Wikipedia |language=en}}

Analysis and comment

According to Indian media watchdog Newslaundry, the sentence ANI objects to has "clear citations that lead to the primary source of information", including to The Caravan, The Ken, BBC News, EU DisinfoLab, Politico, and The Diplomat. Newslaundry and journalist Nikhil Pahwa pointed out that none of the media organisations used as sources were included in ANI's complaint. According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold the WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia.

Software Freedom Law Center, India, a member-affiliate of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, said the suit was an attempt at stifling free speech. Nishant Shah, professor of Global Media at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and faculty associate at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, wrote that Chawla's decision to order the release of personally-identifying information was "a challenge to freedom of speech and information" and would result in the censorship of "any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like". Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to "stifle the flow of information and knowledge". Multiple lawyers have critiqued Manmohan and Gedela's order to take down the page on the litigation, too, disagreeing with the allegations of interfering with judicial proceedings and noting similar coverage by mainstream media.

Tanveer Hasan, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, called the proceedings an "assault on the freedom of speech under the guise of technological regulation".

On the Supreme Court's 9 May judgement, a legal researcher commenting in The Indian Express said "... the Wikipedia v ANI decision is not merely a win for one online platform, it draws a line in the sand. The Supreme Court has reminded lower courts and litigants alike that judicial power must be exercised with restraint, especially in matters concerning speech."{{cite news |last1=Kartikeya |first1=Kumar |title=Drawing a line in the sand: SC judgment reaffirms right to free speech |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/free-speech-freedom-of-expresion-wikipedia-case-9997614/lite/ |access-date=13 May 2025 |work=The Indian Express |date=12 May 2025 |language=en}}

References

External links

[https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new?sno=1&ctype=CS%28OS%29&cno=524&cyear=2024 Case status] at the Delhi High Court
[https://web.archive.org/web/20250110111055/https://dhcappl.nic.in/dhcorderportal/GetOrder.do?ID=nac%2F2024%2F484271011724248111320_25845_5242024.pdf Order of 20 August 2024 by Delhi High Court], directing WMF to disclose identities of Wikipedia editors
16 October 2024 order to take down this article
English Wikipedia community response and discussions:
{{srlink|Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation|Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation}}
{{srlink|Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation}}
{{srlink|Wikipedia:ANI vs. WMF Delhi court}}