- 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. As regards placing reliance on Wikipedia two cases laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court are significant. One is Acer India case [Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. M/s.Acer India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 382] rendered on 12.10.2007 and the other is Hewlett Packard / Lenevo case law [Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., (Now HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva/Lenevo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43] rendered on 17.01.2023. As regards Acer India and Hewlett Packard / Lenevo cases, they pertain to classification under Customs Act but the principle nonetheless can certainly be applied to the case on hand as the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is generic i.e., Wikipedia is based on a crowd-sourced user-generated editing model and therefore is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information. To this extent, the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Acer India and Hewlett Packard / Lenevo case laws can certainly be applied to the case on hand though the two case laws on facts pertain to classification of the imported goods under Customs Act.
-
In Acer India case, the question was, whether a micro-computer is different from a laptop or a PDA. After extracting what the Wikipedia says on this, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic. Relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 16 and 17, which read as follows:
“……………………..” -
Thereafter, in Hewlett Packard / Lenevo case law, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforementioned ratio in Acer India and held that such online platforms can promote misleading information as already alluded to and delineated supra in this order.
-
To be noted, Hewlett Packard / Lenevo also on facts is a case regarding customs goods classification but principle laid down as regards Wikipedia is generic and there is allusion supra in this regard. The most relevant paragraph as regards what we are concerned with is paragraph 14 and the same reads as follows:
“……………….” -
Therefore, 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.
PARTY: Ziyavudeen Baqavi vs Union of India Rep. By The Inspector of Police National Investigating Agency Chennai – Crl.A.No.401 of 2023 – 13.04.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1034856
