The article has not been blocked by Indian government but by Indian judiciary system with a trial, there's a difference. Also trials in India take a lot of time and conclusions are reached after much thought.
Also Wikipedia does not have a good track record of its editors free from misleading articles for defamation and propaganda. I won't trust at all the article in Wikipedia about the war between Wikipedia and ANI. The article (archive) already seems to present the court in a bad flavour.
Yeah that is wrong, but many are under the impression that Indian government has started stomping on free speech and that the judiciary are just completely whimsical.
In India like in many other countries, the judiciary is one of the three branches of government. As an Indian citizen I certainly don't trust the Indian judiciary to be impartial when it comes to literally ANI.
the opening statement is your opinion which is obviously incorrect, stated as if it's factual. In India, as in many countries that follow rule of law, judiciary is independent from government. It's the third pillar of democracy not government.
Classic Doctrine of separation of powers.
the latter part of the statement is clearly given as your opinion which of course one is free to carry.
Correction: The judiciary is independent from the legislative branch of the government, but it functions alongside the executive and legislative branches as part of the Indian government. While the separation of powers is fundamental, it’s important to acknowledge that the existence of this structure doesn’t automatically guarantee impartiality or independence in practice.
Also Wikipedia does not have a good track record of its editors free from misleading articles for defamation and propaganda. I won't trust at all the article in Wikipedia about the war between Wikipedia and ANI. The article (archive) already seems to present the court in a bad flavour.