Wikipedia and the protection offered by SC’s Shreya Singal judgement

Wikipedia functions as a non-profit entity, driven by the commitment of its contributors to ensure accuracy.

By Faisal Farooqui 

Recent developments surrounding the Delhi High Court’s remarks on Wikipedia have sparked significant concern. The suggestion that Wikipedia could face a ban in India due to a petition from ANI is troubling and threatens the very essence of the knowledge revolution that India is experiencing.

Wikipedia stands as a monumental achievement in the realm of free and open information. It operates on the principles of transparency and collective wisdom, with volunteers worldwide contributing to its extensive database without financial gain. Unlike social media platforms, Wikipedia functions as a non-profit, driven by the commitment of its contributors to ensure accuracy and balance through a rigorous self-regulating process.

India’s Jurisprudence Supports Balanced Approach To Digital Freedoms

The Shreya Singhal verdict in the Supreme Court in 2015 highlighted the importance of protecting free speech while ensuring that restrictions are carefully justified. Similarly, the MouthShut.com vs. Union of India case emphasized the need for nuanced regulations that respect digital platforms' roles in protecting consumer rights and fostering free expression. These legal precedents underscore the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to digital freedoms.

The recent remarks from the Delhi High Court suggesting a potential ban on Wikipedia overlooks these principles. Wikipedia’s role is distinct from social media platforms like TikTok or Instagram. It thrives on a model of volunteerism, where scholars and enthusiasts collaborate to maintain the accuracy of information. The platform operates without personal or commercial agendas, relying on collective effort to ensure truthfulness and balance.

Judicial Remedy And Source Of Contestation

Everyone has a right to seek judicial remedy when their rights are violated. But by not suing the actual sources of publications and instead going after an encyclopedia that only cites these articles and threatening a ban on Wikipedia over contested opinions—especially those cited and moderated by experienced editors—sets a concerning precedent. Such a move could hinder not only Wikipedia but also broader public discourse, potentially stifling democratic engagement and the free flow of information.

India, having missed the industrial revolution due to its colonial past, cannot afford to miss the current knowledge revolution. The industrial revolution brought transformative advancements that India was deprived of due to colonial exploitation. Now, in the digital age, the knowledge revolution represents a crucial opportunity for India to advance, bridging gaps in education and access to information. Platforms like Wikipedia are pivotal in facilitating this progress by enabling the free exchange of ideas and knowledge.

Rabindranath Tagore, in his revered work Gitanjali, eloquently envisioned a world: “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; where knowledge is free”. This vision aligns with Wikipedia’s mission to provide unrestricted access to information and empower individuals. Threatening such a vital resource risks undermining the very foundation of intellectual freedom and progress.

(Faisal Farooqui is a tech-entrepreneur and digital rights proponent.)

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this  publication.