In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that public scrutiny and free debate—even on ongoing court cases—are vital to a healthy democracy.
BY PC Bureau
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Delhi High Court’s directive ordering the Wikimedia Foundation to take down a Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation”, which documented legal proceedings in a defamation case filed by news agency ANI.
The page provided details of ANI’s ongoing litigation against Wikimedia over allegedly defamatory content on ANI’s Wikipedia page, including claims that the agency functioned as a propaganda tool for the Indian government. The Delhi High Court had previously ruled that publishing court observations on the matter could amount to contempt and ordered its removal.
However, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed Wikimedia’s appeal, holding that the High Court’s takedown order was unjustified. “We have no hesitation to hold that the direction issued by the High Court could not have been issued,” the bench said.
BREAKING: Not courts' duty to pass takedown orders against media; sub-judice matters can be debated: Supreme Court
For a liberal democracy to thrive, the media and the judiciary must supplement each other, the Court said in the ANI-Wikipedia case.
Read more:… pic.twitter.com/cBAOC7zRW7
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 9, 2025
ALSO READ: India Declares War on Social Media, Forces X to Block 8,000 Users
The Court underscored that such restrictions must meet the strict standards of necessity and proportionality, to be applied only when there’s a “real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, or to the fairness of the trial.”
Crucially, the Court stated that it is not the judiciary’s role to direct the media to delete or alter content. Citing the landmark Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case, the Court emphasized the importance of public scrutiny in maintaining judicial accountability:
“Courts must remain open to public observation, debate, and even criticism. Such transparency fosters public confidence in the judiciary.”
ALSO READ: Alert Border Forces Kill Seven Jaish Terrorists Near Samba
The bench noted that while courts can take action if a publication crosses the line into contempt—such as scandalizing the court or judges—they cannot order content takedowns simply because they disapprove of the coverage. “It is not the duty of the court to tell the media, delete this, take that down,” the judgment stated.
The Court also clarified that postponement orders are preventive—not punitive—and must be legally challenged through appropriate channels if issued.
Highlighting the need for mutual respect between the judiciary and the press, the Court added:
“In a liberal democracy, both institutions must supplement and support each other. Robust public debate, even on sub judice matters, is essential for introspection and institutional improvement.”
The Supreme Court had earlier criticized the High Court’s stance, remarking:
“Just because we don’t like what is written about court proceedings, we cannot order its removal—unless it meets the test of contempt.”
The case stems from ANI’s defamation suit filed in 2024, alleging Wikipedia permitted defamatory edits to its profile. The Delhi High Court had summoned Wikimedia and directed it to disclose the identities of three editors who made the contentious changes. When ANI later filed a contempt petition, the High Court responded by demanding a personal appearance from a Wikimedia representative.
Matters escalated when the High Court division bench, led by then Chief Justice Manmohan, took issue with a Wikipedia page summarizing the case itself and directed its takedown—leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Wikimedia was represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Akhil Sibal, along with lawyers from Trilegal and AZB & Partners. ANI was represented by Advocate Sidhant Kumar and Advocate Sahil Tagotra.
