Courts Must Not Be Seen To Stifle Free Speech | Supreme Court Quashes Delhi HC Order Against Wikimedia For Alleged Subjudice Violation And Upholds Digital Expression Rights
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi regarding content takedown from the Wikimedia Foundation’s platform.
The appeal arose against the High Court's order dated 16.10.2024, where the Division Bench had directed Wikimedia Foundation Inc., the appellant, to remove certain content allegedly interfering with judicial proceedings and violating the subjudice principle. The case's background involved a suit instituted by ANI Media Private Limited against Wikimedia Foundation and others under CS (OS) No. 524/2024, seeking injunctive relief against alleged defamatory content published on Wikipedia.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on 20.08.2024, directed Wikimedia Foundation to disclose the subscriber details of certain defendants within two weeks. Following this, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Order X Rule 2, and Order XI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for contempt proceedings against Wikimedia Foundation for alleged non-compliance.
Subsequently, various articles and opinion pieces critical of the court's decision were published, including a piece on the Indian Express E-edition and discussions hosted on Wikimedia platforms. Notably, an opinion piece mentioned that the court’s directive to release editor identities amounted to a "challenge to freedom of speech and information."
The Division Bench observed that these actions amounted to interference in court proceedings and directed Wikimedia to remove the said content within thirty-six hours. This prompted Wikimedia to approach the Supreme Court.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Akhil Sibal, argued that the Division Bench erred in its prima facie finding of interference with court proceedings. He contended that Wikimedia is merely an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, providing technical infrastructure without engaging in content creation, editing, or moderation. He further submitted that the High Court failed to apply the legal standards laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India.
Mr. Sibal stated that the Division Bench’s direction lacked reasoned analysis and violated the constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He asserted that such a directive would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and access to knowledge.
Counsel for ANI Media Private Limited submitted that the High Court’s direction was merely an interim order, issued to prevent undue influence on the ongoing judicial proceedings. He argued that allowing such content to remain would interfere with the administration of justice and that the appellant, being a party to the proceedings, had facilitated discussions adversely affecting the court's dignity.
The Supreme Court, after examining the impugned order and submissions, noted that the High Court had issued the takedown directive based on its prima facie view that the content interfered with judicial proceedings. However, the Supreme Court recorded that the High Court failed to apply the twin tests of necessity and proportionality as required under constitutional jurisprudence.
“While open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system, it is not absolute. It can be restricted only when substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of trial is demonstrated,” the Court observed.
Relying on Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd, the Court held that preventive injunctions against the press can only be justified if the apprehended danger is real and imminent.
The Supreme Court stated that courts must avoid regulating or stifling free speech except in the rarest circumstances. It further stated, “It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media: delete this, take that down.”
Justice Bhuyan reiterated the importance of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to access justice under Article 21. The Court noted that any order impinging on these rights must meet the rigorous tests of constitutional scrutiny.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s impugned directions issued in paragraph 5 of its order dated 16.10.2024 could not be sustained and set them aside.
The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For The Appellant(s): Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Ms. Tine Abraham, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhijnan Jha, Ms. Shivani Rawat, Mr. Aayush Marwah, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Mr. Bakhshind Singh, Mr. Pranav Tomar, Advocates; For M/s. Trilegal, Advocates-On-Record.
For The Respondent(s): Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Advocate-On-Record; Mr. Om Batra, Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Advocates.
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 656
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5391 of 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
