ANI Seeks Rs. 2 Cr In Damages From Wikipedia Over Defamatory Claims

ANI Seeks Rs. 2 Cr In Damages from Wikipedia Over Defamatory Claims

ANI Media Private Limited has filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court, alleging defamation over what it claims are derogatory descriptions of the news agency on the platform.

Justice Navin Chawla has issued notice on ANI's plea seeking interim relief in the suit and scheduled the next hearing for August 20.

ANI is seeking to restrain Wikipedia from publishing allegedly defamatory content on its page about the news agency and has requested the removal of such content. Additionally, ANI has demanded Rs. 2 crores in damages from Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia's page, ANI "has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events."

ANI argued in court that the content described on Wikipedia is defamatory. It emphasizes that Wikipedia, as an intermediary, operates as a public utility and should not act solely as a private entity.

ANI further noted that Wikipedia has restricted its ability to edit its pages, limiting access to only its editors.

Justice Chawla commented that Wikipedia is entitled to express opinions and will have the opportunity to explain its actions before the court.

“They'll come and explain. It's a pure case of defamation,” Justice Chawla remarked.

In its lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and its officials, ANI alleges that the platform has published false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of damaging the news agency's reputation and undermining its credibility.

Some of the specific grievances cited by ANI include accusations that under new management, ANI has operated with an aggressive revenue-focused model, allegedly mistreating employees and misreporting events, such as falsely attributing blame to Muslims for specific incidents.

ANI contends that Wikimedia, through its officials, has actively intervened to revert edits attempting to correct the content.

“Thus, the conduct of Defendant No. 1 has resulted in a loss of its safe-harbour protection under Section 79(1) of the Act and made it liable for hosting and publishing defamatory content,” the lawsuit asserts.