In a major ruling, the Supreme Court protected Wikipedia from ANI’s defamation claims, reinforcing that online platforms shouldn’t be forced to censor content without a strong legal basis. This decision strengthens India’s commitment to digital free speech and responsible journalism.
New Delhi: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized the importance of press freedom and transparency in judicial proceedings.
The apex court set aside a Delhi High Court order that directed the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, to remove a page detailing the defamation lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia.
This case has sparked a significant debate on the balance between protecting individual reputations and upholding the freedom of expression in the digital age.
Background and Context
The dispute originated in July 2024 when ANI filed a defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation. ANI alleged that its Wikipedia page contained defamatory content, including descriptions labeling it as a “propaganda tool” for the current Central government.
The Delhi High Court initially ordered Wikimedia to remove the disputed content and disclose the identities of the users who made the edits.
ALSO READ: Wikipedia Withdraws Delhi HC Appeal Against ANI Following SC Verdict
Wikimedia complied with the takedown order but challenged the directive in the Supreme Court, arguing that it infringed upon freedom of speech and the public’s right to information.
Issues Before the Court
The central issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the Delhi High Court’s order directing the removal of the Wikipedia page violated the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
- The extent to which courts can direct media platforms to take down content related to ongoing judicial proceedings.
- The balance between protecting an individual’s or entity’s reputation and upholding the public’s right to information and freedom of the press.
Judicial Reasoning and Observations
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized the importance of transparency and public scrutiny in judicial proceedings. The Court observed:
“It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media, delete this, take that down.”
The Bench highlighted that both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy and must function in a complementary manner:
“For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary. Introspection is the key. That can only happen if there is robust debate, even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other.”
The Court reiterated the significance of public scrutiny in judicial processes:
“We may once again remind ourselves of the profound words of this Court expressed through the nine-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism.”
Addressing the issue of public debate on sub judice matters, the Court stated:
“Every important issue needs to be rigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court.”
On the matter of criticism against judges, the Court noted:
“Those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges, and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Krishna Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action.”
However, the Court acknowledged that there are circumstances where postponement of reporting may be necessary:
“Such an order should be passed only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings. The order of postponement will only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test otherwise favours non-publication for a limited period.”
The Court emphasized that any such order must meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality:
“Such an order should be subject to the twin test of necessity and proportionality to be applied only in cases where there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, or to the fairness of the trial.”
Furthermore, the Court clarified the nature of postponement orders:
“A postponement order is not a punitive measure, but is a preventive measure.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s direction to Wikimedia Foundation to take down the page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation,’ which detailed the legal dispute between the two entities.
ALSO READ: ANI vs OpenAI: Delhi High Court Hears Copyright Infringement Case Against ChatGPT
The apex court underscored that the judiciary’s role is not to instruct the media on content removal and that robust public debate, even on ongoing judicial matters, is essential for the health of a liberal democracy.
This judgment reinforces the principle that freedom of expression and the right to information are fundamental to a democratic society.
It also delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in matters concerning media reporting and online content, setting a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of defamation law and digital free speech.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Akhil Sibal and advocates Nikhil Narendran and Tine Abraham from Trilegal, along with Advocates Vijayendra Pratap Singh and Abhijnan Jha from AZB & Partners appeared for Wikipedia.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar appeared for ANI along with Advocate Sahil Tagotra.
READ JUDGEMENT:
Click Here to Read More Reports On ANI And Wikimedia
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
