Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation

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 ₹2 crore (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 characterized the judge's order that the WMF to release the identities of the editors who made the edits as censorship and a threat to the flow of information.^[2][3]

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia, in multiple languages, and multiple other similar projects.^[4] Each project is independent and largely self-governed; the WMF exerts limited authority over any project, and typically remains uninvolved with content policy.^[5][6] 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.^[7]

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.^[4] Editors are pseudonymous, except those who voluntarily disclose their identities.^[6]

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. Sometimes articles are protected because edits are being made by multiple editors with a conflict of interest, such as employees of an organization that is the subject of an article.^[6] 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.^[8][6]

In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law, or both.^[9] According to the Constitution of India, the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to "reasonable restrictions".^[10]

The Safe Harbor clause of Information and Technology 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.^[11][12] In February 2021, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party government introduced amendments to the IT Act, imposing stricter obligations on intermediaries, including requiring them to proactively monitor content for illegal or harmful activity.^[13][14]

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.^{[15][5][3][16][11]} 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".^{[17][18][11][16]}

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".^[6] 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.^{[5][15][16][19][20]}

ANI asked for ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) in damages and an injunction against Wikipedia "making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI".^[15][6] It also argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media "intermediary" within the definition of Information Technology 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.^[11]

Chawla issued a summons to WMF and set a hearing date of 20 August.^[21][20] 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 a fortnight so that ANI can pursue legal action against them as individuals.^[17][2][22]

On 5 September, ANI asked the court to hold WMF in contempt when the identifying details were not released.^[17][6] 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."^[23][24][8] He further ordered that an "authorised representative" of WMF appear in person at the next hearing, which was scheduled for 25 October 2024.^[17][22][25] In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources and their delay stemmed from being based in a foreign country.^[17][26]

Days later, WMF appealed Chawla's order, petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before asking for disclosure.^[26] 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 hence, must be defended by the editors in question.^[24][27] They also characterized Wikipedia's refusal to divulge the identifying details as "extremely disturbing", and warned that WMF would lose its protection under the Safe Harbor Act shall it choose to defend the allegations of defamation.^[26][28][27]

The judges further objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia 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.^[26][29] 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".^[30][31][32]

On 18 October, ANI asked the court to seek contempt proceedings against the WMF, since the 36-hour deadline had not been complied with.^[33]

According to 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 organizations used as sources were included in ANI's complaint.^[6][3] According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia.^[11]

Software Freedom Law Center, India, a member-affiliate of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, found the suit to be an attempt at stifling free speech.^[12] 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".^[2] Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to "stifle the flow of information and knowledge".^[3] Multiple lawyers have critiqued Manomhan 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.^[26]

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".^[26]