Wikipedia is embroiled in a major legal battle in India that experts declare could impact how the online encyclopaedia functions in the country.

The battle stems from a 20m rupee ($237,874; £183,012) lawsuit filed by India’s largest newswire service against Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, for allegedly publishing defamatory content against it.

In the lawsuit in the Delhi high court, Asian information International (ANI) said a paragraph in its description on Wikipedia falsely accuses it of being “a propaganda tool for the incumbent [federal] government” and of “distributing material from fake information websites” and demanded the page be taken down.

Wikipedia says the content on the website is completely managed by volunteers and that the Foundation has no control over it.

In August, the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose who made these allegedly defamatory edits to the ANI page – and threatened to shut down the website if it didn’t comply with its orders.

The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to distribute basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it’s not obvious what that would be.

Experts declare the case is an significant one as its outcome could impact people’s access to neutral information on the platform.

“It will inform us whether India lives in the era of the internet, where information is truthful and free for everybody to access,” says technology law specialist Mishi Choudhary.

The hearing began in July after ANI petitioned the court, saying it had tried to transformation the allegedly defamatory material on Wikipedia but its edits were not accepted.

The ANI page was put under “extended confirmed protection” – a Wikipedia characteristic used to stop vandalism or abuse – where only users who have already done a sure number of edits can make changes to a page.

In its lawsuit, ANI demanded that the allegedly defamatory content be taken down. However, it has not sued the information reports that are cited in the Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia, in turn, argued that despite being a throng-driven platform, it had a robust truth-checking structure.

Wikipedia works on a self-regulation model, where anyone can make edits on a page as long as it is backed by a published authentic source and written from a neutral point of view – this means no-one can add recent, unpublished information on Wikipedia.

There are volunteers on the website who edit and verify information, while maintaining their anonymity.

Any debates among volunteers about the edits are visible for everyone to view on the page. In case of disagreements, there are guidelines on how to resolve disputes. The website also uses bots to keep track of the changes.

In court, the Wikimedia Foundation said that it only provided technical infrastructure and had no connection with the volunteers who manage content on the website.

But this model came under scrutiny after a page on the ongoing court case appeared on Wikipedia.

Last week, the court ordered it to be taken down saying it interfered with court proceedings.

The Foundation has since suspended the page. Observers declare this is probably the first period that a Wikipedia page in English language has been taken down after a court order.

Transparency reports published by the Foundation since 2012 display that in about 5,500 content takedown and alteration requests globally, it had complied with less than 10, and none of them were for the English website.

The shift was criticised by some digital experts who said it was incorrect to receive down the page as it collated what the press had been reporting on the case.

Simply put, a lot.

Experts declare that the outcome of the case is likely to have significant ramifications for the platform’s operations in India.

Tech journalist and digital rights specialist Nikhil Pahwa fears that the case may inspire more people and brands to commence controlling their Wikipedia pages.

“Many people do not like how they have been portrayed on Wikipedia. Now anyone can file a case, inquire for identification of editors and the court might grant it without any preliminary determination of whether there was defamation,” he says.

Ms Choudhary says the case could have a “chilling result” on free talk as editors might hesitate to write truthful content.

Any form of self-censorship could also seriously hamper access to neutral information about a subject on the platform, she adds.

Of course, Wikipedia is no unknown to controversy. It has faced various forms of censorship in at least 13 countries. China banned it in 2019 and Myanmar in 2021.

It has also had run-ins with the Russian government and courts. Moscow has blocked several pages critical of the government and courts have fined the Wikimedia Foundation for its refusal to remove these articles.

In 2023, Pakistan blocked the website for three days after it did not remove allegedly “blasphemous content”.

Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey in April 2017 after it refused to delete articles critical of the country’s government. Turkey’s top court lifted the ban in 2020.

In India, experts declare the platform is one of the few organisations that has pushed back against the federal government’s orders to receive down content.

But a ban could seriously derail its operations in the country.

If the verdict is not in Wikipedia’s favour, “we as a population will suffer since we will not have access to impartial information”, Ms Choudhary says.

pursue BBC information India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.