In a significant and precedent-setting decision dated March 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court, in the matter of Asian News International (ANI) v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (CS (OS) 649 of 2023), addressed critical questions concerning the liability of online platforms for defamatory content and the limits of the intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
I. Factual Matrix
Asian News International (ANI), one of India’s largest multimedia news agencies, brought a suit for defamation against the Wikimedia Foundation Inc., the nonprofit organization operating the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. ANI alleged that malicious and defamatory content had been published on its Wikipedia page, branding it as a “disinformation outlet” associated with the Indian government and implying that it disseminates state-sponsored propaganda.
ANI contended that such allegations were false, misleading, and based on unverifiable or politically motivated sources, including third-party think tanks with questionable neutrality. Despite issuing multiple legal notices and takedown requests to the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the content, no substantial action was taken. The persistent inaction, ANI argued, amounted to deliberate negligence, causing grave injury to its professional reputation and credibility.
II. Core Legal Issues
The Court was called upon to decide the following:
- Whether Wikipedia enjoys protection as an intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 when defamatory content is hosted and remains undeleted despite notice.
- Whether Wikimedia Foundation, by facilitating edits and content moderation, plays an active role in content dissemination and thus waives its claim to passive intermediary immunity.
- Whether the allegedly defamatory statements constituted prima facie defamation, entitling ANI to interim relief in the form of takedown and injunctive directions.
III. Arguments Advanced
A. Plaintiff’s Contentions (ANI)
- ANI asserted that Wikipedia is not a neutral passive platform. Rather, it operates through an elaborate framework of editorial control, moderation mechanisms, and community oversight, thereby losing the statutory shield granted to neutral intermediaries under Section 79.
- It emphasized that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, intermediaries are required to act within 36 hours of receiving knowledge of unlawful content, especially where such content is defamatory, infringes privacy, or threatens public order.
- ANI also highlighted that the actual knowledge standard had been met in this case since Wikipedia was put on formal notice through legal correspondence, emails, and official complaints. Yet, the defamatory material remained public.
- The plaintiff further cited the reputational damage being caused by the widespread availability of the defamatory claims and sought urgent injunctive relief under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
B. Defendant’s Position (Wikimedia Foundation Inc.)
- The Wikimedia Foundation argued that it merely hosts a platform that allows open editing by users across the world, and it does not create or verify content.
- It claimed protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides immunity to intermediaries from liability for third-party information or data hosted on their platform, provided they do not initiate or modify the content.
- The Foundation insisted that Wikipedia’s editorial model is user-driven, and that imposing liability would compromise the core functioning of an open-access knowledge platform and result in over-censorship and stifling of free speech.
- It also attempted to discredit the immediacy of the alleged harm, arguing that the content in question was referenced with citations, and that Wikipedia does not possess the resources or legal infrastructure to adjudicate the veracity of such content.
IV. Court’s Analysis and Observations
Delivering a comprehensive judgment, Justice Navin Chawla undertook a deep examination of the intermediary liability framework and defamation law in the digital age.
1. Conditional Nature of Intermediary Immunity
- The Court underscored that Section 79(1) of the IT Act offers conditional immunity to intermediaries. That immunity is contingent upon compliance with the due diligence requirements set out under the Act and the 2021 IT Rules.
- Once actual knowledge is received — through a court order, government directive, or formal notice from an affected party — the intermediary must act swiftly to disable access to the offending content.
2. Role of Intermediary: Passive vs. Active
- The Court rejected the claim that Wikimedia Foundation was a passive conduit. It highlighted that Wikipedia maintains a structured governance model, with administrators, moderators, and bots who can lock pages, delete entries, and reverse edits.
- As such, Wikimedia was found to have the technical and administrative ability to intervene, and the failure to do so despite repeated notices amounted to inaction and recklessness, forfeiting the protection under Section 79.
3. Reliance on Case Law
The judgment relied heavily on established precedents:
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1] – where the Supreme Court held that intermediaries are required to act only upon receipt of actual knowledge, but must act expeditiously upon such notification.
- Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Inc. & Ors. [(2019) SCC OnLine Del 10704] – where the Delhi High Court held that intermediaries may be directed to take down defamatory content and prevent re-uploading or mirroring across jurisdictions.
- Karmajyot Seva Trust v. Union of India [(2022) SCC OnLine Bom 399] – reinforcing that editorial inaction despite notice could attract liability for intermediaries.
The Court found that Wikimedia’s failure to remove or restrict defamatory content after multiple legal notices established prima facie defamation.
V. Court’s Directions and Interim Relief
The Court granted interim relief in favour of ANI, ordering:
- Wikimedia Foundation to take down or disable access to the defamatory content referenced in ANI’s complaint.
- The platform to prevent further publication or restoration of similar content without judicial review.
- Wikimedia to strengthen its internal redressal mechanism to respond to legitimate claims of defamation or misinformation.
The matter remains pending for final adjudication on damages, but the interim ruling strongly signals that online platforms are not above legal scrutiny, especially when reputational harm is at stake.
VI. Implications of the Judgment
This decision is a watershed moment in the evolution of intermediary jurisprudence in India. It sends a clear message to global digital platforms:
- Intermediary protection is not absolute. Platforms that exert control over content, either through moderation or editorial mechanisms, may be treated as active participants in publication.
- Once notified of unlawful or defamatory content, intermediaries must act promptly and responsibly, or risk losing legal immunity.
- Defamation claims in the digital domain are gaining legal recognition, and courts are willing to safeguard reputational rights alongside freedom of speech.
This judgment opens the door for greater accountability and regulatory compliance, particularly in an era where online misinformation, cyberlibel, and reputational manipulation are rampant. It also affirms the judiciary’s role in balancing technological advancement with legal responsibility.
FAQs:
1. Are websites like Wikipedia responsible for user-posted defamatory content?
Websites that allow users to post or edit content—like Wikipedia—are generally protected from being sued for what others write. However, this protection isn’t automatic. If the website knows that harmful or false content is there and does nothing about it, especially after a formal complaint, it can lose that protection and be held legally responsible. The law requires platforms to act responsibly once notified.
2. What is “intermediary liability” under Indian law?
“Intermediary liability” means whether a platform like Facebook, YouTube, or Wikipedia can be held legally accountable for the content shared by its users. Under Indian law (Section 79 of the IT Act), intermediaries are not liable if they only act as a neutral platform and follow the rules. But if they fail to remove harmful or illegal content after getting a legal notice, they can lose this immunity.
3. Do online platforms have to delete defamatory content if you send them a legal notice?
Yes, in most cases. If you send a proper legal notice to an online platform about defamatory content and they don’t act quickly to remove or block it, they could be held responsible in court. Indian law requires intermediaries to act “expeditiously” once they have actual knowledge of harmful content—whether through a legal notice, court order, or government directive.
4. What’s the difference between a passive and active online platform under the IT Act?
A passive platform just hosts user content without controlling or editing it—like a bulletin board. An active platform manages, edits, or moderates content using admins or bots. If a platform actively controls content but doesn’t act on harmful or false posts after being alerted, it can be treated like a publisher and lose its legal shield under Indian internet laws.
5. Can you sue a global website in India for defamation if it hosts false content about you?
Yes, you can. Indian courts have made it clear that even international websites can be sued in India if the defamatory content affects your reputation here. The courts can direct such platforms to remove the content, and if they don’t comply after being notified, they may face legal consequences under Indian defamation and IT laws.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.