The Delhi High Court has ruled that Wikipedia must deliver court summons to the editors of the Asian News International (ANI) page. As a result, ANI filed a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia, claiming that the platform is being used as a tool for propaganda.
ANI claimed that the three editors who had contributed to a page on the news agency portrayed it in a biased light. Wikipedia, acting as a defendant in the case, initially sought to protect the identities of these editors, claiming intermediary status as a defence.
However, the court’s Division Bench has now mandated that Wikipedia reveal their identities, allowing the case to move forward, reports Bar and Bench.
In response to ANI’s demands, Wikipedia had previously offered to disclose the identities in a sealed cover, which was to be shared only with the court. However, a recent consent order has now facilitated a more direct approach, with Wikipedia agreeing to summon the editors involved formally.
A key aspect of this case is Wikipedia’s intermediary status, which it has argued shields the platform from liability for third-party content. However, ANI’s legal team countered that the suit could not progress without identifying the editors as no party would be directly responsible for the disputed content.
The court also resonated with the views of ANI’s legal team, mentioning that Wikipedia’s claim of neutrality and legal immunity as an intermediary prohibits the case from moving forward.
Akhil Sibal, Wikipedia’s representative, argued that while Wikipedia had notified the editors of the case, the commons had not yet been formally issued, explaining that strict legal protocols must be observed in summoning them.
ANI’s attorney, however, contested this position, arguing that Wikipedia had already influenced proceedings by informing the editors of the case through its ‘Village Pump’ community forum and had extended legal support to them. This communication demonstrated potential collusion between Wikipedia and its editors.
The summons will bring editors into the case as formal defendants, paving the way for a more comprehensive examination of Wikipedia’s intermediary protections and the responsibility of its editors.
Wikipedia’s position as a neutral platform has faced scrutiny in this case, and the eventual outcome may set significant precedents concerning online anonymity, platform liability, and defamation standards for user-generated content.
In the News: Apple’s smart home IP cameras might hit the market in 2026
