NEW DELHI: Terming the contents of a page hosted on Wikipedia as "prima facie contemptuous," Delhi HC ordered the platform Wednesday to take it down within 36 hours.
The page had criticised a earlier order directing Wikipedia to reveal names of users who wrote alleged defamatory content against a news agency.
"We are of view that description of order and the judge is prima facie contemptuous and amounts to interference in proceedings," noted a bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, ordering removal of page. It ordered the removal of posts discussing the ongoing hearing on Wikipedia.
"The court was disturbed to note that observations made during the last hearing were opened for discussion on the website, compounding the contempt," HC remarked. Senior advocate Akhil Sibal , representing Wikipedia, stated that neither the page commenting on the judge's order nor the discussion page were created by the platform.
During the hearing on Wikipedia's appeal against the earlier order, the bench asked Sibal if the platform would act against malicious comments. Sibal replied that comments would be removed if directed by the court, citing the platform's self-regulation policy.
However, HC remained unconvinced, pointing out that "safe harbour" protection under the new IT Rules doesn't apply since Wikipedia refused to reveal user details despite a court order .
The defamation suit accuses Wikipedia of allowing edits labeling the news agency as a "propaganda tool" for the govt and seeks removal of the content and Rs 2 crore in damages.
The page had criticised a earlier order directing Wikipedia to reveal names of users who wrote alleged defamatory content against a news agency.
"We are of view that description of order and the judge is prima facie contemptuous and amounts to interference in proceedings," noted a bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, ordering removal of page. It ordered the removal of posts discussing the ongoing hearing on Wikipedia.
"The court was disturbed to note that observations made during the last hearing were opened for discussion on the website, compounding the contempt," HC remarked. Senior advocate Akhil Sibal , representing Wikipedia, stated that neither the page commenting on the judge's order nor the discussion page were created by the platform.
During the hearing on Wikipedia's appeal against the earlier order, the bench asked Sibal if the platform would act against malicious comments. Sibal replied that comments would be removed if directed by the court, citing the platform's self-regulation policy.
However, HC remained unconvinced, pointing out that "safe harbour" protection under the new IT Rules doesn't apply since Wikipedia refused to reveal user details despite a court order .
The defamation suit accuses Wikipedia of allowing edits labeling the news agency as a "propaganda tool" for the govt and seeks removal of the content and Rs 2 crore in damages.
You may also like
'Language is soul of civilisation; it's our responsibility to keep words of Buddha and Pali alive': PM Modi at Abhidhamma Divas
ICSI CSEET January 2025 Registration Begins: Direct Link to Apply at icsi.edu
James Martin off screen - love life, 'regret' over children and James Bond link
Ant Middleton describes 'tragic loss' as he pays tribute to 'little brother' Liam Payne on GMB
Keir Starmer will lose majority if one Tory leadership candidate wins: POLL