ANI vs Wikipedia: What the case is about and what has happened so far

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Wikimedia's challenge to Delhi HC order seeking removal of Wikipedia page detailing ANI's defamation case and courtroom exchanges

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 9) reserved its verdict on an appeal filed by the Wikimedia Foundation against a Delhi High Court order directing the takedown of a Wikipedia page titled "Asian News International v Wikimedia Foundation." The page had summarised court proceedings in a defamation case filed by ANI and quoted observations made during the hearings.

 

ANI vs Wikipedia: What's the case?

 

The legal dispute began on July 9, 2024, when news agency ANI filed a defamation suit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court, alleging that its Wikipedia page contained false and damaging information. ANI disputed charges that the news agency was a "propaganda tool for the incumbent central government," and accused Wikipedia of misreporting and allowing fake news to spread.

 

 

ANI also demanded:  

 

- The removal of the disputed content  

- A ban on Wikipedia from publishing such material  

- ₹2 crore in damages  

 

ANI further objected to the page being “protected,” which limited the agency’s ability to edit it, while anonymous Wikipedia users could still make changes.

 

Wikipedia, which allows for user-generated modifications supported by credible sources, defended itself by citing its community moderation model and neutrality policy.

 

Justice Navin Chawla, who initially heard the case, acknowledged ANI's concerns while also noting that Wikipedia has the right to defend its content under free speech.

 

ANI vs Wikipedia: What has happened so far?

 

Over the months, the legal battle has widened. In August 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to disclose the identities of the users who made the allegedly defamatory edits. The court further warned that failure to comply could result in the website being blocked in India.

 

Wikipedia responded by agreeing to give basic subscriber information (BSI) to the court in a sealed manner while retaining user confidentiality.

 

Another flashpoint occurred in October 2024 when a separate Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International v Wikimedia Foundation” was created. The page summarised the legal proceedings between ANI and Wikipedia and quoted courtroom exchanges. ANI then accused the new page of interfering with the proceedings and filed a contempt application.

 

The Delhi High Court accepted ANI's argument and issued an interim order ordering the page to be taken down. ANI's contempt petition was later dismissed once the page was removed. Meanwhile, Wikimedia challenged the order before the Supreme Court, calling it a threat to free speech and the right to document court cases.

 

On April 2, 2025, the high court granted ANI interim relief and directed Wikimedia to remove the page. This prompted Wikimedia to petition the Supreme Court for a stay and a more thorough hearing on the implications of such takedown orders.

 

What happened in the last hearing?

 

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan examined the high court’s interim order and raised concerns about whether such content removal could be justified without a proper legal finding of contempt.

 

“...we are not saying that the court is powerless to direct that some content should be removed. But there has to be first a prima facie finding recorded with reasons that what is published is contemptuous. So condition precedent is a prima facie finding giving reasons why it amounts to contempt,” Justice Oka said, as reported by Bar and Bench.

 

The court also reviewed specific language used in the Wikipedia article, including the use of the word “threatened” to describe a judge’s oral remark about shutting down Wikipedia. Justice Oka said that simply finding content objectionable is not enough to justify its removal.

 

“Suppose somebody says something about a court proceeding before this court, only on the grounds that we feel it objectionable, or we don’t like it, we can’t direct removal. Only if we come to a conclusion that this satisfies the well-settled test of contempt prima facie finding, then we can do it.”

 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wikimedia, clarified that the information on the Wikipedia page was not original to the platform but was sourced from LiveLaw, The Indian Express, and other reputable media outlets.

 

“It’s not as if we picked up something on our own,” he said.  

 

“It was authored by a visiting professor at Harvard, appeared in The Indian Express and was mentioned in a footnote.”

 

Sibal also warned against curbing transparency in judicial reporting: “You can’t say there should be no discussion. We have an open justice system; this has a chilling effect.”

 

Justice Oka appeared to agree: “If somebody publishes a news item about me and my brother [Justice Bhuyan] that we threatened somebody in court, we will not get bothered… Every day we hear that we are insensitive etc. Why should we be bothered? But we can’t say that for someone else.”

 

The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict on Wikimedia’s appeal. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.