NEW DELHI: Delhi HC rebuked Wikipedia Monday for its resistance to disclose user information and took a dim view of its attempts to pressurise (sic) a judge hearing a defamation plea against the information aggregator.
"We are warning you. You may be the world's most powerful entity but we live in a country governed by the rule of law. You may lose safe harbour privilege as an intermediary," a bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela told the counsel for Wikipedia while hearing its challenge against a single-judge bench's order to disclose user information in the defamation case filed by a news agency. The court had asked for identities of users who allegedly made defamatory edits to the news agency's Wikipedia page.
The bench was appalled to find out that even as the matter was sub judice, a page on Wikipedia made comments on the case. "Who created this page? You have not been able to restrain your client to ensure dignity and decorum is maintained. You can't threaten a judge or pressurise (sic) like this. This page will have to be taken down, otherwise, we won't hear you," an angry bench told Wikipedia's senior lawyer Akhil Sibal.
The court rejected the argument of the online platform against the disclosure of identities of users who allegedly made the defamatory edits. "Your system cannot be a cloak to defame someone. If a user is saying the news organisation works for RAW and is against Pakistan, you are putting them in danger. Just put yourself in their shoes," the court told Sibal when the advocate argued for protecting user anonymity and requested to be heard on this aspect.
The defamation suit accuses Wikipedia of allowing the defamatory edits referring to the news agency as a "propaganda tool" for the govt. The agency has sought removal of the edited content and Rs 2 crore as damages.
HC made it clear that Wikipedia's stance could jeopardise its intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act . It had earlier warned the platform it may be blocked in India if it doesn't comply with its laws. The single judge had taken a strong view of the open-source platform's failure to furnish details of subscribers who edited the news agency's page.
"We are warning you. You may be the world's most powerful entity but we live in a country governed by the rule of law. You may lose safe harbour privilege as an intermediary," a bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela told the counsel for Wikipedia while hearing its challenge against a single-judge bench's order to disclose user information in the defamation case filed by a news agency. The court had asked for identities of users who allegedly made defamatory edits to the news agency's Wikipedia page.
The bench was appalled to find out that even as the matter was sub judice, a page on Wikipedia made comments on the case. "Who created this page? You have not been able to restrain your client to ensure dignity and decorum is maintained. You can't threaten a judge or pressurise (sic) like this. This page will have to be taken down, otherwise, we won't hear you," an angry bench told Wikipedia's senior lawyer Akhil Sibal.
The court rejected the argument of the online platform against the disclosure of identities of users who allegedly made the defamatory edits. "Your system cannot be a cloak to defame someone. If a user is saying the news organisation works for RAW and is against Pakistan, you are putting them in danger. Just put yourself in their shoes," the court told Sibal when the advocate argued for protecting user anonymity and requested to be heard on this aspect.
The defamation suit accuses Wikipedia of allowing the defamatory edits referring to the news agency as a "propaganda tool" for the govt. The agency has sought removal of the edited content and Rs 2 crore as damages.
HC made it clear that Wikipedia's stance could jeopardise its intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act . It had earlier warned the platform it may be blocked in India if it doesn't comply with its laws. The single judge had taken a strong view of the open-source platform's failure to furnish details of subscribers who edited the news agency's page.
