Delhi High Court Flags Wikipedia for Biased ANI Page: Raises Alarms on Neutrality and Accountability

In a significant development concerning the credibility and neutrality of online information, the Delhi High Court recently came down heavily on Wikipedia for hosting allegedly defamatory and biased content against Asian News International (ANI). The case, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors., has stirred a wider conversation about the responsibility of digital platforms that serve as public information repositories.

Wikipedia’s Neutrality Under Scrutiny

On April 2, 2025, Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court took strong exception to the content published on Wikipedia’s page about ANI. The Court observed that the page did not adhere to Wikipedia’s own stated policy of maintaining a “neutral point of view” and instead appeared to be based on editorials and opinionated articles.

Justice Prasad emphasized that “the statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages,” and questioned whether Wikipedia had ensured these sources were reflected in a neutral manner, as required by their policies.

Wikipedia Cannot Avoid Accountability

One of the most pivotal points raised in the judgment was the responsibility of Wikipedia as more than just a passive intermediary. The Court strongly rejected Wikipedia’s defense that it cannot be held responsible for user-generated content, stating:

“Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia), therefore, cannot completely wash its hands of the contents of the article on the ground that it is only an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statement that is published on its platform.”

Given Wikipedia’s global influence and the tendency of users to treat its content as accurate and reliable, the Court underscored that its responsibility is far greater. It stated that people often treat Wikipedia as the “gospel truth,” and therefore, the platform must ensure stricter oversight of potentially defamatory or biased content.

Defamation Allegations and Editorial Misrepresentation

ANI’s legal team, led by Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra, Akshit Mago, and Anshika Saxena, argued that the Wikipedia page contained statements branding ANI as a “propaganda tool” of the Central government, which ANI claimed were defamatory and misrepresented the original sources.

The Court agreed with ANI’s assertion that the edited content went beyond the scope of cited articles, stating that the impugned statements “are not verbatim reproduction” and are in fact “totally contradictory to the intent with which these Articles were written.” The ruling added that such representations not only distorted the original intent but also damaged ANI’s professional reputation.

Barriers to Rebuttal and Lack of Editorial Access

An important concern raised by ANI was the restricted nature of edits on its Wikipedia page. The news agency contended that it had limited recourse to challenge or correct the allegedly defamatory content. The Court found this argument valid and noted that it placed ANI at a clear disadvantage, especially when such content can significantly affect its public image.

Compliance and Contempt Issues

The case history reveals a series of escalating legal actions. In July 2024, the Delhi High Court had summoned Wikipedia and directed it to disclose the identities of users who made the controversial edits. After Wikipedia failed to comply, the Court issued a contempt notice and ordered a representative to appear in person on October 25.

However, a resolution was reached after Wikipedia appealed to a Division Bench. Both parties agreed that Wikipedia would notify the editors while protecting their identities. Notices were subsequently served to the three individuals who had edited the ANI page.

Wikipedia’s Contentious Case Page Also Taken Down

The controversy further deepened when Wikipedia hosted a page titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation,” detailing the legal case itself. This page was also criticized by the Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manmohan (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who ordered its removal. Wikipedia complied but later challenged the order in the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the matter today, April 4, 2025.

What This Means for the Digital Landscape

This case has far-reaching implications for digital platforms that rely on user-generated content. The ruling underscores that platforms like Wikipedia cannot hide behind the “intermediary” shield when content breaches legal and ethical standards. As a self-proclaimed encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a greater responsibility to ensure neutrality, factual accuracy, and protection against defamation.

Moreover, this case highlights the difficulty that individuals and organizations face when trying to contest biased content on major platforms. Even though Wikipedia is community-driven, its editing policies and administrative controls can hinder timely rebuttals to potentially harmful content.

Key Legal Teams and Representation

ANI was represented by a team of seasoned lawyers including Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra, Akshit Mago, and Anshika Saxena. Wikipedia’s legal representation was led by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, supported by a large team including Nikhil Narendran, Tine Abraham, Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Abhijnan Jha, and others.

Conclusion: A Landmark Moment in Online Content Accountability

The Delhi High Court’s interim ruling is a landmark moment in the evolution of legal oversight for online platforms. By holding Wikipedia to a higher standard, especially due to its perceived authority, the Court has set a precedent for how similar platforms must operate going forward. While the final verdict and the Supreme Court’s ruling are still awaited, the judgment has already ignited an essential dialogue on accountability, transparency, and neutrality in the digital information age.

As more people turn to online sources for information, the demand for fair and unbiased content is more crucial than ever. Platforms like Wikipedia must not only enforce their editorial standards more rigorously but also develop better mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances from those affected by potentially damaging content.

Also Read

National Law Seminar on Cyber Crime and Cyber Law by IPEM Law Academy
Legal Internship by KGM & Co
Legal Internship Opportunity by KK Law Associates