$~128 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 8^th April, 2025 + FAO(OS) 41/2025 WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC .....Appellant Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Ms.

Tine Abraham, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Shivani Rawat, Mr. Thomas J. Vallianeth, Mr.Abhijnan Jha, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Mr. Bakhshind Singh, Mr.Pranav Tomar, Mr. Krishnesh Bapat, Advocates.

versus ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Akshit Mago, Mr. Om Batra and Ms.

Anshika Saxena, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPLs. 20471-73/2025 (for exemptions)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

CM APPL. 20470/2025 & FAO(OS) 41/2025 Background:

3. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant- Wikimedia Foundation Inc. inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2025 in CS (OS) 524/2024 titled, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. & Ors., by which the ld. Single Judge has Signature Not Verified disposed of the injunction application filed by the Asian News International Media Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘ANI’) seeking interim injunction, in the following terms:

“24. According to the aforementioned decision of this Court, 'Single Publication Rule' only applies when the second publication is a verbatim reproduction of the first publication. After perusing the Articles which were being cited by Defendants No. 2 to 4 while making the impugned statements, this Court opines that the impugned statements on the Plaintiff's page are not verbatim reproduction of such articles, and these impugned statements are written in such a way which is totally contradictory to the intent with which these Articles were written and the impugned statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff on the Platform of Defendant No. 1 are devoid of the context of the Articles. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned statements are ex-facie defamatory and tarnishes the professional reputation of the Plaintiff.

25. In view of the fact that Defendant No.2 to 4 have chosen not to appear despite service and this Court having perused the articles which are the source of this opinion, this Court finds that the opinion of Defendants No.2 to 4 do not represent the true picture of the articles and have been twisted by Defendants No.2 to 4. Further, this Court finds merit in the allegation of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1 has ensured that the articles cannot be edited by anybody else, thereby putting Plaintiff in a disadvantage to rebut what is given in the page. Therefore, the present application is allowed in terms of prayer (b) and (c) of the application.

26. The application is disposed of.”

4. A brief background of the present case is that the ANI, a news agency operating in India, filed a suit being CS (OS) 524/2024 before this Court alleging that the English Wikipedia (hereinafter, ‘Wikipedia’) page relating to ANI consists of several defamatory statements which are also factually Signature Not Verified incorrect. The plaint gave reference to the various statements published by Wikipedia which were objected to by ANI and alleged that the Wikipedia page has deliberately published false, misleading and defamatory content pertaining to the said news agency. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the Appellant herein has the power to select and modify the information on its website, Wikipedia and has therefore actively published defamatory statements pertaining to ANI on its website.

5. The Plaintiff, ANI in its plaint has further alleged that Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a significant social media intermediary in terms of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter, the ‘IT Rules, 2021’). Further, it deliberately edited its website to include false, misleading