09 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on May 9, 2025, in the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v/s Ani Media Private Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5391 of 2025), overturned an order by the Delhi High Court that had directed Wikimedia Foundation to remove content and discussions related to ongoing court proceedings. The judgment, delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and the Honourable Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasizes the principles of open justice, freedom of speech, and the role of the media in a democracy.

The case originated from a defamation suit filed by ANI Media Private Limited against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and others. During the proceedings, a page was published on Wikipedia and a "talk page" initiated discussions, both of which commented adversely on an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The High Court's Division Bench, viewing these as interference in court proceedings, a violation of the subjudice principle, and bordering on contempt, directed Wikimedia to take down the pages within 36 hours.

The Supreme Court, however, focused on the legality and propriety of this "take down" direction, rather than the inter-se merits of the defamation suit. Wikimedia Foundation, represented by senior counsel, argued that it is merely an intermediary providing technical infrastructure and does not edit, update, or monitor content. It contended that the High Court's order was unreasoned, unwarranted, and violated the right to open justice under Article 21 and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Court extensively reviewed precedents on contempt of court, subjudice principles, and freedom of the press. It referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, which established criteria for postponement of publication: a "real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice" and the absence of "reasonable alternative methods" to prevent such risk. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order lacked any discussion on how the hosted pages constituted such a risk.

The judgment also drew upon Swapnil Tripathi Vs. Supreme Court of India, which highlighted the importance of open justice and the public's right to know as flowing from Article 21. It reiterated that open courts act as a check against judicial arbitrariness and build public confidence. The Court cited Lord Denning's observations in Regina v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex. p. Blackburn, emphasizing that courts should "most sparingly exercise" jurisdiction over contempt, not to uphold their own dignity, but to ensure freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court underscored that criticism of court proceedings, if reasonable and accurate, is not objectionable. It quoted Justice Krishna Iyer from Re S. Mulgaokar, stating that courts should act with "majestic liberalism" and ignore "trifling and venial offences," and that "to criticise the Judge fairly, albeit fiercely, is no crime but a necessary right, twice blessed in a democracy."

While acknowledging the nuances introduced by the digital age and Wikimedia's contention of being an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Supreme Court chose not to delve into that aspect. Instead, it focused on the fundamental principles of open justice and free speech.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found the High Court's "take down" direction to be unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to robust public debate and criticism, even on matters before the court, as essential pillars of a liberal democracy.

Section 104., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908     

Section 151., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  

Section 79, Information Technology Act - 2000  

Information Technology Act, 2000