Latest news with #InformationTechnology(IntermediaryGuidelinesandDigitalMediaEthicsCode)

Time of India

Wikipedia vs ANI case: SC reiterates power to postpone judicial reporting, sets aside Delhi HC order

The Supreme Court referenced the Sahara India case regarding postponing reporting judicial proceedings. Wikipedia won its appeal against a Delhi High Court order to remove information. A division bench refused to stay the single-judge bench's order to take down alleged defamatory content about Asian News International, ANI. The court stated Wikipedia must comply with IT Rules. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads In a big relief to Wikimedia Foundation , the Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Delhi High Court 's earlier order that had directed the platform to delete allegedly defamatory content related to Asian News International (ANI) from its Ujjal Bhuyan, delivering the Supreme Court's judgment, reiterated the principle laid down in the Sahara India case, affirming that courts do have the power to postpone the reporting of judicial proceedings—but only when there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of a judgment noted that while courts must remain open to debate and constructive criticism, including discussions on sub judice matters, judges themselves cannot respond publicly. However, if a publication scandalises the court, appropriate action may be taken. Crucially, the court stated it is not the judiciary's role to direct media outlets to remove a division bench of the Delhi HC had refused to stay a single-judge order directing Wikipedia to remove certain descriptions of ANI. The bench—comprising Justices Pratibha Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta—had ruled that Wikipedia and its host, the Wikimedia Foundation, are subject to the Information Technology ( Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The court held that if defamatory content was not removed within 36 hours, ANI could approach the court for further bench also clarified that as an intermediary, Wikipedia cannot contest a takedown directive on merits. 'If you claim to be an intermediary, your job is to comply with court orders. You cannot argue the content's merit,' the bench the court stayed parts of the single-judge's order that had directed Wikipedia to remove the 'protection status' of ANI's page and barred users from posting defamatory content. Protection status on Wikipedia limits editing access to administrators Singh stated that if similar content appears again, ANI could inform Wikipedia, which would be expected to act on April 2, Justice Subramonium Prasad had passed an interim order directing the removal of allegedly defamatory descriptions from ANI's Wikipedia page. The order came in response to a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, seeking the removal of the content and damages amounting to Rs 2 alleged that Wikipedia had published false and defamatory content with malicious intent, damaging the agency's reputation. The Wikipedia page reportedly described ANI as a 'propaganda tool' and 'mouthpiece' for the government and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).