It is “extremely disturbing” that Wikipedia thinks it is beyond the ambit of law, the Delhi High Court said on Monday, reported Bar and Bench.

The court was hearing a case by news agency Asian News International seeking the removal of allegedly defamatory content posted to its Wikipedia page.

The Wikipedia page about ANI says that the news agency has been criticised for serving as a “propaganda tool” for the current Union government.

The court’s remark came in response to Wikipedia’s refusal to identify the page’s editors. “The system [of Wikipedia] cannot be a cloak to defame someone,” the court said.

A bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing an appeal filed by Wikipedia against a single-judge order of the same court directing a representative of the platform to be personally present for proceedings in the defamation case on October 25.

Wikipedia is a free online collaborative encyclopaedia edited by volunteers. It is owned by the United States-based non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

In July, the court issued a summons to Wikipedia and ordered it to disclose information about the users who made the edits on ANI’s Wikipedia page, according to Bar and Bench.

After this, ANI claimed that Wikipedia had not complied with orders to disclose the information. On September 5, the court warned Wikipedia that it would ask the government to block the platform in India and issued it a contempt of court notice.

On Monday, the bench told Wikipedia that it was putting its intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act at risk by not disclosing the information.

The Act’s safe harbour clause protects social media intermediaries from legal action for content posted online by users.

“You are the service provider,” Manmohan said, according to Bar and Bench. “You run some risk of your protection, safe harbour being waived.”

Wikipedia’s defence of the users who made the edits to ANI’s page showed that it was done “at [the] behest” of the platform, the court noted. “Your vehemence is showing,” Manmohan said. “You are something more than an intermediary.”

The court also criticised Wikipedia for allowing a page titled Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation to be published on its platform about the matter. “Look at the page,” the bench said. “You are disclosing something about a sub-judice matter.”

“You have put learned single-judge in line of fire,” the court said. “This page will have to be taken down, otherwise you will not hear. You may be backed by the world’s most powerful power but I think we live in a country which is governed by the rule of law and we take pride in that.”

Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for Wikipedia told the court that the platform was only challenging the order on the disclosure of the identities of the users who had made the edits, Bar and Bench reported.

“I have legitimate interest in protecting the anonymity and I want to be heard on this aspect,” he said.

In response, the bench asked Wikipedia how an individual accused of making slanderous statements can be served in a suit if their identity is not disclosed. “You are accusing someone [ANI] of being a state-sponsored agent,” the bench said.

On July 12, in response to the defamation case, the Wikimedia Foundation said that the platform’s content is determined by its global community of volunteer editors.

“As a technology host, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not add, edit or determine content published on Wikipedia,” it stated. “Wikipedia’s content is determined by its global community of volunteer editors [also known as Wikimedia Community] who compile and share information on notable subjects.”