Delhi High Court seized with ANI's case against Wikimedia Foundation's Wikipedia

Asian News International (ANI), an Indian news agency offers syndicated multimedia news feed to news bureaus in India and elsewhere. It was established by Prem Prakash in 1971, it was the first agency in India to syndicate video news. It is considered the biggest television news agency in India. The ANI page on the Wikipedia of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. states:"ANI has been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions. In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court, claiming that the news agency was defamed in a description on the website." Prem Prakash was given Lifetime Achievement Award in the award ceremony graced by Gajendra Shekhawat, the Union Minister in July 2023.

In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd vs. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court issued summons to Wikipedia on July 9, 2024 in the suit filed by the ANI. ANI has alleged that Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia has allowed defamatory edits to ANI's page on its online platform. The Court's order reads: " Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the Defendants, to be served through all permissible modes, including through electronic mode and dasti as well, returnable on 20th August, 2024. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that the Written Statement(s) to the plaint shall be positively filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record." 

On August 20, 2024, the Court's order recorded that application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amending the plaint. The Court issued the notice. The order reads: "defendant no.1 is directed to disclose the subscriber details of defendant nos.2 to 4 to the plaintiff, through its counsel, within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the said information, the plaintiff shall take steps for ensuring service of summons and notice on the application on the said defendants. Written statement be filed by defendant no.1 within the prescribed period." 

On September 5, 2024, the Court reportedly issued a contempt of court notice to Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ANI has submitted that the platform has failed to comply with orders to disclose information on subscribers who made allegedly defamatory edits on ANI's Wikipedia page. In his oral observation,  Justice Chawla said: "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikimedia Foundation Inc] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia...Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India." The High Court ordered an authorised representative of Wikimedia Foundation Inc to be personally present in Court on October 25, 2024 when the matter will be heard next.

ANI sued Wikimedia Foundation Inc. for defamation. The news agency has claimed that Wikipedia allowed defamatory edits on its page which referred to ANI as a "propaganda tool" for the present government. Responding to the lawsuit, the Wikimedia Foundation said: "As a technology host, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not add, edit or determine content published on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s content is determined by its global community of volunteer editors (Wikimedia Community) who compile and share information on notable subjects."

 

Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi's conviction in defamation case

In Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & State of Gujarat, Supreme Court's 3-judge Bench passed an order upon hearing the appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision petition, which was in turn filed challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting the prayer for stay of conviction. Consequent to his conviction by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in C.C.18712/2019, Rahul Gandhi, Member of Lok Sabha representing the Wayanad Parliamentary Constituency of Kerala was disqualified from the membership of Lok Sabha from the date of his conviction i.e. 23 March, 2023 in terms of the provisions of Article 102 (1) (e) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The notification dated 24h March, 2023 to this effect was issued by Utpal Kumar Singh, Secretary General, Lok Sabha Secretariat. 

The order of the Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that "no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal. We, therefore, stay the order of conviction during the pendency of the present appeal."

Justice Hemant Prachchhak of the High Court had affirmed the decision of a Gujarat sessions court, dated April 20 which had refused to put on hold a magisterial court order on March 23, 2023 convicting Rahul Gandhi, the ex-President of Indian National Congress. He ordered the maximum punishment provided for criminal defamation under the Indian Penal Code. The magisterial court had in March convicted Gandhi for his remarks ahead of the 2019 national polls about the ‘Modi’ surname. He had at that time allegedly said: “How come all thieves have Modi surname in common”. Gandhi was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment which disqualified him as an MP under the rigours of the Representation of People's Act. Gandhi was declared disqualified as MP from Kerala’s Wayanad on March 24 following a notification of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Supreme Court took into account the issue of grant of stay of conviction factors like: The sentence for an offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) is simple imprisonment for two years or fine or both. It noted that "The learned Trial Judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. 

Except the admonition given to the appellant by this Court in contempt proceedings Contempt Petition (Crl) No.3/2019 in Yashwant Sinha and Others v.Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338] no other reason has been assigned by the learned Trial Judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is to be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned Trial Judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”) have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years.Though the learned Appellate Court and the learned High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, these aspects have not even been touched in their orders". It emerges that Appellate Court's order was flawed.