Crime Today News
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a Delhi High Court verdict that ordered the deletion of a Wikipedia page on defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia on the grounds that the page was prima facie contemptuous and amounted to interference in court proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that
as a public and open institution, courts should always remain open to public observation, debate and criticism. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. Every important issue should be debated by the people and the press, even if it was the subject of proceedings before a court.
The Apex Court, however, said that those offering criticism should remember that judges could not respond to such criticism. If a publication scandalised a court or a judge and if a case of contempt was made out, certainly the court should take action.
It was not the duty of the court to tell the media to delete this, take that down. Introspection was key for the improvement of any system, including the judiciary. It could only happen if there was a robust debate even on sub-judice matters, noted the Bench.
Reading out from the verdict, Justice Bhuyan said both the judiciary and the media were the foundational pillars of democracy, which was the basic feature of the Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both should supplement each other, he added.
The Apex Court passed the order relying on the Sahara case judgment, which ruled that the courts could only order the postponement of reporting of judicial proceedings if the applicant demonstrated a substantial risk of prejudice to the pending trial.
The courts should pass such an order only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings. Such a postponement order should be subject to the twin test of necessity and proportionality and should be considered appropriate only in cases where the balancing tests otherwise favoured the non-publication for a limited period. The postponement order was not a punitive, but a preventive measure, the Apex Court had ruled in the Sahara case.
The Bench today also referred to the nine-judge Bench decision in Naresh Mirajkar, which ruled that a trial held subject to public scrutiny and gaze naturally acted as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and served as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice.
The top court of the country passed the order after issuing notice on a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation, the parent company of Wikipedia, challenging the High Court judgment, which directed the takedown of a Wikipedia page titled ‘Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation’.
The High Court took exception to comments on the page, particularly a statement that a judge had threatened to order the shutdown of Wikipedia in India.
The Apex Court expressed its displeasure over the High Court’s observation that the content amounted to interference with ongoing court proceedings and the direction to remove material simply because it criticised the High Court.
The Bench questioned the High Court as to how it could pass the order without contempt being proved.
The matter pertained to a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikipedia, alleging that content on the Wikipedia page titled ‘Asian News International’ was defamatory regarding its credibility and editorial policies. ANI sought damages of Rs 2 crore and removal of the material.
On November 11, 2024, the High Court closed ANI’s contempt plea regarding the Wikipedia page on the defamatory proceedings after Wikimedia removed the page titled ‘Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation’.
Before the Supreme Court, Wikimedia argued that the content was not created by it but by users, and that the relevant statement cited an article published by the Indian Express. It maintained that the page referenced media reports and fell within the scope of open discussion on court proceedings. The Apex Court reserved its verdict on April 9, 2025.
A single-judge Bench of the High Court subsequently granted interim relief to ANI in the main defamation case and ordered Wikimedia to remove allegedly defamatory content from ANI’s Wikipedia page titled Asian News International.
The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order but partly stayed the single judge’s directions, restraining enforcement of the order that directed Wikipedia to remove the protection status of the ANI page and prevent users and administrators from publishing defamatory content.
The Apex Court, however, set aside the injunction orders passed by the High Court on the grounds that the High Court’s direction to remove all false, misleading and defamatory content was very ‘broadly-worded,’ and not capable of being implemented.
This article first appeared on India Legal
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
