New Delhi: In an April 13 judgment, the Madras high court set aside an order passed by a special National Investigation Agency court that had referenced Wikipedia while rejecting a Muslim preacher’s discharge plea in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act plea.According to Bar and Bench, Justices M. Sundar and M. Nirmal Kumar said that the Supreme Court has cautioned against citing Wikipedia while deciding legal disputes. The special NIA court must decide on the discharge plea afresh, the high court said, this time relying on witness statements and legal evidence.“…it is clear that Hon’ble Supreme Court has put in a caveat and caution against use of such sources (Wikipedia) in legal dispute resolution. Acer India and Hewlett Packard / Lenevo principles make it clear that on this score, the trial Court fell in error i.e., fell in error in relying on Wikipedia and, therefore, the matter has to go back to trial Court to consider the matter afresh de hors Wikipedia keeping in mind the caveat put in place by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Acer India as well as Hewlett Packard / Lenevo cases,” the high court said, according to Bar and Bench.Ziyavudeen Baqavi, a Muslim preacher, had been arrested for allegedly browsing and sharing posts from the Facebook page of a “fundamentalist” Islamic organisation. He had been charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA.Baqavi’s lawyer told the high court that the NIA judge had not looked at the evidence, and instead only relied on the Wikipedia definition of the organisation to claim that charges were made out under the UAPA.The high court agreed with this submission, saying, “With regard to reliance on Wikipedia, the submission of learned counsel is indisputable as paragraph 9 of the impugned order of the trial Court explicitly relies on Wikipedia for a definition/description to presume and assume that the objective and aim of a particular entity is as set out therein. We refrain from setting out the same as categoric and certain sole reliance on Wikipedia is indisputable. In this view of the matter, learned Prosecutor really does not have much of a say as it is a matter of record and part of the case file before us.”
