Supreme Court Strikes Down Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI’s Defamation Suit

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed Wikimedia’s appeal and ruled that the High Court’s direction to take down the page was unwarranted and unjustified, particularly in the absence of any substantial risk to the fairness of judicial proceedings.

The High Court had previously held the Wikipedia page to be “contemptuous,” sparking concern over censorship and the potential chilling effect on media coverage of court cases.

Pronouncing the verdict, the Apex Court began by reiterating the principle laid down in the Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI case, which held that courts do have the power to temporarily postpone reporting on judicial proceedings to protect the fairness of trials.

However, the Supreme Court emphasized that such postponement can only be ordered if the applicant is able to demonstrate a “real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the pending trial.

“The burden lies squarely on the applicant,” the Court observed. “Postponement of publication is not to be invoked casually. It is a preventive, not punitive, measure — and must be tested on the grounds of necessity and proportionality," it held.

The Court further emphasized that even when such postponement orders are passed, they are subject to legal scrutiny and can be challenged by the media. In recognizing the critical role of the press in a democracy, the Bench noted that freedom of reporting judicial proceedings is an integral part of open justice.

“The judiciary, as a public and open institution, must remain accessible to public observation, debate, and criticism,” the Bench said. “In fact, informed critique and robust public discourse are essential for introspection and institutional improvement, even when the matters under discussion are sub judice," it added.

Referring to the landmark nine-judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reminded that public trials act as a safeguard against “judicial caprice” and help build confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the courts.

The Bench also acknowledged the unique position of judges, who are unable to publicly defend themselves against criticism. “While constructive criticism is welcome, if a publication crosses the line and scandalizes the court or its judges, and a clear case of contempt is made out, then the court is duty-bound to act,” the Court warned, citing the six guiding principles articulated by Justice Krishna Iyer on the law of contempt.

Significantly, the Bench took a firm stance against censorship of online content by judicial diktat. “It is not the duty of the court to tell the media to delete this or take that down,” the Court remarked.

“In a liberal democracy, both the judiciary and the media are foundational institutions — they must supplement and support each other, not act in opposition," it said.

Summing up its decision, the Court held, “In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court were unwarranted. Accordingly, the impugned direction is set aside. The appeal is allowed.”

The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court directed it to remove content from Wikipedia related to ANI’s defamation case, terming the entry prejudicial and contemptuous.