In a rare move for an online platform in India, Wikipedia recently chose to appeal against a court order directing it to disclose the identity of users who are accused of writing defamatory statements on the Wiki page of Asian News International (ANI).

The Delhi High Court on September 5 had issued a contempt of court notice to Wikipedia and summoned its authorised representative after ANI said the website failed to disclose the identity of the users despite a Court direction.

"I have legitimate interest in protecting anonymity and I want to be heard on this aspect," counsel for Wikipedia told a Division Bench in appeal against Justice Navin Chawla’s order for disclosure.

The online encyclopaedia, which works on a model allowing its users to edit pages either using their real name or a pseudonym, argued that such a direction – that was not accompanied with a reasoning for ordering such disclosure - could become a precedent and lead to reprisals against such users whose identities are revealed.

However, it was not the first time the High Court has ordered an online platform to reveal the identity of users accused of some infringement. 

Lifting the veil

In Neetu Singh v. Telegram FZ LLC, Justice Pratibha M Singh in a landmark decision ordered the messaging app to disclose the mobile numbers, IP addresses and email addresses of users accused of unauthorised dissemination of a popular teacher’s video lectures, course material and books.

“Disclosure pursuant to an order passed by a Court of law of the details of the channel operators who are disseminating materials infringing the copyrighted works, or the devices and other gadgets used, cannot be shielded under the grounds of protection of privacy or protection of freedom of speech and expression,” Justice Singh said in the ruling passed in 2022.

Telegram, which thrives on anonymity, did not appeal against the decision; it revealed the information to the Court in a sealed cover. The teacher is now moving to implead those users whose information has been revealed, as parties to her suit.

Telegram has also disclosed user information in other cases as well since then. The High Court passed a similar direction for disclosure to Facebook and Telegram in a venture capital firm’s case this year. Meta later complied with the order.

Larger questions

While such cases pertain to copyright infringement or cheating people, the question in Wikipedia’s case is not just of user privacy, but free speech as well.

“The effect this would produce, where any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like can be censored, or indeed become grounds for punishment would discourage future generations of knowledge warriors who relentlessly and selflessly work on producing free knowledge for the world to use,” academic Nishant Shah last month wrote in The Indian Express.

Shah further said,

"The complaint and the judgment both seem to miss out on the fact that Wikipedia is not a platform, a site, or an app. It is a movement that believes that information should be free and that there is space for dialogue and conversation in a world that is increasingly polarised and clamping down on the ideals of freedom of speech and expression."

In its appeal before the Delhi High Court, Wikipedia raised a similar argument against the order for disclosure and submitted that a test must be first met before such an order is passed.

Such a test, it said, was necessary to protect the privacy and freedom of expression of its users, which are members of the public, in a case with competing interests.

“Our concern is the model fails if a person simply comes to court without the court expressing any opinion on the material and there is straightway a disclosure order…in cases, this may lead to reprisals when people know who that person [user] is. There may be a political compulsion…all kinds of consequences,” Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, told the Court.  

Sibal also suggested that the information can be submitted in a sealed cover, as has been done in other cases before the High Court.

However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela instead posed a barrage of questions to Wikipedia and warned the platform that it runs the risk of losing its safe harbour protection.

“How can you defend this…it seems you are party to this,” Chief Justice Manmohan told Sibal.

In particular, ANI has objected to the portion in its Wikipedia page that describes it as a mouthpiece of the Central government. The Division Bench seemed to agree that it was defamatory.

“If these are incorrect allegations, they are scandalous to the core. If they are correct, they must be defended and the person must come forward and say ‘I have courage to defend it’. You are virtually accusing someone, a journalist, of being a State-sponsored agent,” Justice Manmohan said.

Survival at stake

Though Wikipedia’s appeal appeared to be limited to asking the Court for a reasoning and meeting a test before ordering such disclosure, it now has become something that may put the platform’s existence in India at risk.

On September 5, when the Court was told that Wikipedia had failed to disclose the information, Justice Chawla warned that he would ask the government to shut down the widely popular platform.

Along the same lines, the Division Bench said that by filing the appeal, Wikipedia was putting at risk its intermediary protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. Wikipedia was also questioned for defending the content on ANI’s page despite only being an intermediary and not the original source.

ANI's Wikipedia page states that the news agency is a government “mouthpiece” and has been accused of “using fake news websites to spread pro-government and anti-Pakistan propaganda”. These statements cite various news articles that date back to 2019 and 2020.

During the hearings, the Court has made it clear that users who have added these portions must defend themselves. Interestingly, the original sources or publications cited are not parties to the suit filed by the ANI.

One of the articles hyperlinked to ANI’s page is of The Caravan. When Wikipedia argued that the publication had not been made party to the case, the Court called it a convenient answer.

“An article published by say X magazine which is read by a hundred people, you don’t bother about it…it does not have the gravitas that it deserves a suit of defamation. If it comes to Wikipedia, it is not going to have a viewership of hundred, it may have it in millions and then it becomes a cause of disturbance,” the Court observed.

Such an observation from the Court could call into question the very model and architecture of Wikipedia, which is usually among the first results that Google shows when one searches for something.

Not that the Court didn’t say so explicitly.

“Your architecture will have to be gone into, whether it is a cloak for these sorts of activities,” Justice Manmohan told Wikipedia.

If users who only collate information after hyperlinking relevant sources are made liable for their actions as opposed to publications that have originally published the alleged defamatory statements, what would happen to the repository of information that Wikipedia is? 

Information requests from India and abroad

It is relevant at this point to delve into how user information requests from India and other countries are dealt with by Wikipedia. Publicly available data shows that Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, receives far fewer requests for user data as compared to other platforms, particularly the social media websites.  

Every six months, Wikimedia publishes transparency reports which reveal data on requests for user information or content alteration and takedown from various entities including governments, courts and non-governmental organisations.

“Often, we have no nonpublic information to disclose because we collect little nonpublic information about users and retain that information for a short period of time. But when we do have data, we carefully evaluate every request before considering disclosure. If the requests do not meet our standards—if they are overly broad, unclear, or irrelevant—we will push back on behalf of our users,” Wikipedia states.

The available data from July 2012 shows that requests for user data from India have never been granted. Requests in other countries, barring a few, have met a similar fate. 

Between July 2012 to December 2018, a total of 16 requests for user information were received from India. None of them were granted. 

In comparison, information was fully provided in 14 of the total 83 requests received from the United States (US). In 6 cases from the US, the information was partially produced.

Interestingly, information outside the US was provided only in one case originating from France during this period.

In 2019, a total of 61 requests were received across the world - only two of them were granted and they were from the US. All seven requests from India were declined. 

Similarly, a total 62 requests were received in 2020 - two from the US and one from France were granted. 13 requests from India were declined. 

Between 2021 and June 2024, the requests from India continued to be declined. 

Out of 48 requests in 2021, only 4 - 1 each from Italy and France and 2 from the US - were granted. The 4 requests from India did not meet a positive response. 

Similarly in 2022, the 11 requests from India were not granted. All 60 requests from across the world met the same fate.

In 2023, a total of 73 requests were received, and 8 were granted. While 6 of those originated from the US, 1 each from Germany and France were also favourably answered. 11 requests from India met the usual fate.

This year till June, a total of 26 requests were received. A total of 2 were granted - one from Sweden and the US each. There was no request from India.

What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia’s defence in the Delhi High Court is clear – it is not like X where people express their opinions, but an encyclopedia where people who add and edit information on its pages must cite sources to back it.

“It is a constantly evolving process because it keeps getting revised and corrected and so on…you have to reference it with a secondary source, those are usually articles in the newspapers or academic articles which are in public domain,” Wikipedia’s counsel told the Court in a recent hearing.

However such explanations have not found favour in court thus far, because judges for now have solely focused on disclosure of user information by the platform.

As Shah wrote in the Express column,

“I keep on wondering if there is a failure to understand the nature of Wikipedia.”

To get a clearer picture as to how it functions, it is worthy to look into the "five pillars" that guide Wikipedia. On neutrality, it says,

"In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."

The five pillars also indicate what Wikipedia isn't.

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents..."

Even as courts and others contemplate its true nature, Wikipedia now finds itself in deeper waters for a page titled Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation that records the developments in the ongoing case. The Division Bench saw the page and user discussion on it as an interference in court proceedings.

On October 16, the Bench ordered the takedown of the page and discussion with regard to the Court’s observation, within 36 hours. However, Wikipedia is yet to comply with the order. ANI has already moved the Court with an application for contempt action against the online repository, initiating another round of litigation against the non-profit.