Today, On 17th March, The Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicial tolerance while reviewing the Delhi High Court’s order to remove Wikipedia content in the ANI case. It underscored the need to balance media freedom with concerns over misinformation. The bench cautioned that broad removal directives could set a troubling precedent. Instead, it called for a more measured approach to handling content disputes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a notice to Asian News International (ANI) in response to a plea from the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) challenging a Delhi High Court order that mandated the removal of the page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.’
The bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, questioned the rationale behind the High Court’s order against Wikipedia, emphasizing that the matter pertains to media freedom.
Also Read: BREAKING | ANI Vs Wikipedia| Delhi HC Issued Summons To User Who Make ‘Defamatory’ Edits
The Court remarked to the counsel representing ANI, which has initiated a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia,
“Ultimately this is media. The question is about freedom of media. Today it is he (Wikipedia), tomorrow it may be you,”
The page in question, which has already been removed, did not directly target ANI but instead contained information regarding the defamation case that ANI filed against Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court.
The page actually included details about the High Court hearing and the remarks made by the Court during the proceedings of ANI’s defamation suit.
The High Court had expressed objections to this, stating in its order that discussing the Court’s observations could constitute contempt of court. Consequently, in October 2024, it ordered the online encyclopedia to remove the page.
However, the Supreme Court was unimpressed by this rationale, questioning why the High Court was “so touchy” about the issue.
The Court noted that court proceedings are frequently criticized on social media, and that judges should not demand the removal of such discussions simply because they are critical of the judiciary.
The Bench stressed the importance of judges being more accepting of criticism.
The Supreme Court stated,
“This is about freedom of media. Today it is Wikipedia, tomorrow it may be you,”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, highlighted the gravity of the situation, asserting,
“My Lords, it is a very serious issue. Without providing a finding, a defamation order has been passed…”
After issuing a notice, the Court scheduled the next hearing for April 4.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar represented ANI in this case.
The dispute began when ANI filed a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia, claiming that the platform permitted certain users to make defamatory edits describing the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current Central government.
On July 9, the High Court issued summons to Wikipedia, directing it to reveal the identities of three individuals responsible for the edits on ANI’s Wikipedia page. Subsequently, ANI submitted a contempt of court application to a single judge, alleging that Wikipedia had failed to comply with the order.
Wikipedia’s legal counsel explained that they needed time to respond because the organization is not based in India. However, Justice Navin Chawla expressed strong concerns about Wikipedia’s actions on September 5, mandating that an authorized representative of the platform be present in court on October 25.
In response, Wikipedia appealed to the Division Bench. When the case was presented to the Division Bench, it noted the existence of a page dedicated to the case itself. The High Court then strongly criticized Wikipedia for allowing the publication of the page titled ‘Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation’ related to the ongoing case.
The Court also took issue with Wikipedia’s refusal to disclose the identities of the individuals who edited the ANI page. Ultimately, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan (who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered Wikipedia to remove the page concerning ANI’s case.
This order has led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited.
Diary No. 2483 / 2025