Why Supreme Court reversed Delhi High Court’s Wikipedia page takedown order in ANI defamation case

'Both judiciary & media are foundational pillars of democracy, a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other,' says the top court.

File photo of the Supreme Court of India | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

New Delhi: In an important verdict on media freedom and public access to pending court proceedings, the Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that required Wikipedia to delete information regarding news agency ANI’s legal dispute with Wikimedia.

In October 2024, the Delhi High Court had instructed the Wikimedia Foundation to take down a Wikipedia page that carried information about the ongoing defamation case filed by the Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia.

Separately, ANI raised concerns about another Wikipedia article, which it referred to as a “talk page” and the court referred to as the “impugned page”. This page documented the ongoing court proceedings based on media coverage of the case and contained remarks on the high court’s order to Wikimedia “to release the identities of the editors who made the edits”. Delhi High Court on 16 October, 2024—citing possible interference with the judicial process—directed Wikimedia to take down this “talk page” due to the discussion on court observations. Taking cognizance of ANI’s objective, the Delhi High Court had ordered the removal of this talk page on Wikipedia, saying that the matter was sub-judice.

“For the improvement of any system and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a 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,” a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said on 9 May in a 37-page order.

‘Propaganda tool’

The case stems from a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation, alleging that the Wikipedia page on the news agency contained false and damaging statements. This page was not under the scope of the matter being examined by the Supreme Court.

Specifically, ANI had objected to claims on the page suggesting that the agency acted as a government “propaganda tool”. It argued that such claims could harm its professional reputation and credibility.

Separately, ANI raised concerns about another Wikipedia article which it referred to as a “talk page” or “impugned page”. This page documented the ongoing court proceedings based on media coverage of the case. The Delhi High Court, citing possible interference with the judicial process, directed Wikimedia to take down this page, not because of defamatory content, but due to its discussion of court observations.

Taking cognizance of ANI’s complaint, the Delhi High Court had ordered the removal of the Wikipedia page, reasoning that it could negatively impact ANI’s image.

“Since this Court is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comments on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the discussion on the observations made by this Bench amount to interference in court proceedings and violation of the sub judice principle by a party to the proceeding and borders on contempt, this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.- the appellant herein to take down/delete the said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours,” the Delhi HC’s order from October 2024 said,

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this decision.

Hearing Wikimedia’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), the bench firmly rejected the HC’s interpretation and its broad directive.

“We are of the firm view that the Division Bench had reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions,” the SC said, adding that it is not the role of the judiciary to instruct media platforms or websites to delete content, especially when it concerns reporting or public commentary on legal proceedings.

In March, the top court mentioned that it was only concerned with the “legality and validity” of the directions issued by Delhi High Court. “..In this appeal, we are not concerned with the inter se merit of the case between the parties. We are primarily concerned with the legality and propriety of the direction of the High Court to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the High Court,” it said.

‘Media reporting is not contempt’

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, took note of materials published by The Indian Express and Medianama while addressing the issue of the HC’s takedown order. The court acknowledged that these reports had cited and discussed judicial observations made during the hearings of the ANI vs. Wikimedia case. However, it clarified that such publications—whether they include opinion or critique—do not by themselves amount to contempt of court or interference in the judicial process.

The court used these examples to underscore its view that public discussion and reporting on court proceedings, including critical commentary, are part of a healthy democratic system and should not be stifled unless there is a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. “In the ultimate analysis, it is the people who would suffer because of restrictions on knowledge and information flow”.

Reference was also made to the SEBI Sahara case of 2012. “The Supreme Court is not only the sentinel of the fundamental rights but is also a balancing wheel between the rights, subject to social control. Freedom of expression is one of the most cherished values of a free democratic society. Freedom of the press which is a facet of freedom of expression includes the right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources. In essence, freedom of expression embodies the right to know,” the judgement read.

Reiterating what was said in the nine-Judge Bench decision in the 1966 Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case about public scrutiny, gaze and criticism, the top court said, “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.”

“Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is subjudice before a court. However, those who offer criticism should remember that Judges cannot respond to such criticism but if a publication scandalizes the court or a Judge or Judges and if a case of contempt is made out,” it added.

The apex court also referred to the Swapnil Tripathi judgment in 2018 which stressed on how the legal system is based on the principle of open justice, emphasizing that the right to access justice under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution is truly effective only when the public can observe court proceedings as they happen.

The right to know and receive information, protected under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), is an essential aspect of this. As a result, the SC said, the public has a legitimate right to follow court cases that affect society as a whole or even a specific group within it.

Hence, the top court overturned the Delhi HC’s injunction orders, noting that the directive to “remove all false, misleading and defamatory content” was overly broad and impractical to enforce.

Clarification: The case stems from a defamation suit filed by ANI against the Wikimedia Foundation over alleged false and damaging statements on the Wikipedia article titled ‘Asian News International’, particularly descriptions portraying ANI as a government ‘propaganda tool’. Separately, ANI raised concerns about another Wikipedia article which it referred to as a “talk page” or “impugned page”. This page documented the ongoing court proceedings based on media coverage of the case. The Delhi High Court, citing possible interference with the judicial process, directed Wikimedia to take down this page, not because of defamatory content, but due to its discussion of court observations.

(Edited by Tony Rai)