The high-profile defamation dispute between Asian News International (ANI) and Wikipedia resumed before a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday, following the Supreme Court’s directive to hear the matter afresh.
Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that hosts Wikipedia, in response to a fresh interim application filed by ANI. The news agency is seeking removal of allegedly defamatory content from its Wikipedia page, which it claims portrays it as a “propaganda tool” for the current Central government.
ANI, represented by Advocate Sidhant Kumar, argued that Wikipedia should not have allowed anonymous users to make defamatory edits, and as an intermediary, lacks standing to contest the suit on merits. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Wikimedia, requested additional time to respond, prompting Justice Singh to ask who would bear responsibility if ANI’s allegations prove valid. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 7.
This marks the second round of litigation before the single-judge bench. Earlier, on April 2, the High Court had granted ANI interim relief by directing Wikipedia to take down the allegedly defamatory statements. That order was later upheld by a Division Bench of the Court on April 8. Wikimedia appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside both High Court orders on April 17.
The Supreme Court found the takedown order excessively broad and lacking specificity. It held that such relief was “not capable of being specifically implemented” due to the absence of a clear framework to determine what content is defamatory. The Court allowed ANI to renew its request before the single judge with greater clarity.
Meanwhile, ANI has also objected to the continued availability of the Wikipedia page titled Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, which details the ongoing legal proceedings. The Delhi High Court had previously viewed the page as contemptuous. However, the Supreme Court overturned the takedown order, affirming the public’s right to access and discuss sub-judice matters.
In its judgment, the apex court emphasized that courts should not instruct media or platforms to remove content unless absolutely necessary, and that reporting on ongoing cases is not inherently impermissible. The ruling reinforces the balance between media freedom and judicial fairness in a democratic society.
