Case Number
CIVIL APPEAL/5391/2025
Case Title
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors.
Headnote
The Supreme Court set aside a direction from a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that had ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to take down certain pages and discussions from its platform. The High Court had issued the takedown order on the prima facie view that the content, which commented on ongoing court proceedings, amounted to interference with the administration of justice and bordered on contempt. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction was a disproportionate reaction. Citing the principles of open justice and freedom of speech, the Court emphasized that public debate on sub-judice matters is essential in a democracy. It clarified that courts should not act as censors by ordering the media or platforms to “delete this, take that down.” While courts can take action for contempt if a publication scandalizes the judiciary, a takedown order is a form of prior restraint that should only be used in cases of a “real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the fairness of a trial, which was not established in this case.
Court
Supreme Court of India
Type
Judgment
SCR Citation
NA
Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 656
Disposal Nature
Appeal Allowed
Case Type
CIVIL APPEAL
Law Type
Constitutional Law, Media Law, Contempt of Court, Information Technology Law
Judgment Authored by
Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan*
Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka
Date of Judgment
May 09, 2025
Case Start Date
NA
Case Arising From
The appeal arises from an order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, dated October 16, 2024. The High Court was hearing an appeal (FAO (OS) No. 146 of 2024) filed by the Wikimedia Foundation against an order of a Single Judge. During the appeal proceedings, the respondent (ANI Media) pointed out that pages on Wikipedia were commenting on the Single Judge’s order and the ongoing case. The Division Bench took a prima facie view that this constituted interference in court proceedings and contempt, and directed Wikimedia to take down the specified pages and discussions within 36 hours. Wikimedia challenged this takedown direction in the Supreme Court.
Background and Facts
The respondent, ANI Media Private Limited, filed a defamation suit against the appellant, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., and others before the Delhi High Court. In the course of the proceedings, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an order on August 20, 2024, directing Wikimedia to disclose the details of certain users.
Following this, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express and hosted on Wikimedia’s platform, which was critical of the court’s order. Subsequently, a “talk page” was created on the platform where discussions about the ongoing court proceedings took place. When the matter came before the Division Bench of the High Court, ANI Media complained that these publications were intended to pressurize the court. The Division Bench, finding that the content prima facie interfered with the judicial process, ordered Wikimedia to take down the offending pages. This takedown order is the subject of the present appeal.
Timeline
- August 20, 2024: A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directed Wikimedia to disclose subscriber details.
- September 17, 2024: An opinion piece critical of the court’s order was published in the Indian Express and hosted on Wikimedia’s platform.
- October 14, 2024: A “talk page” was hosted on Wikimedia’s platform, opening up discussions on the ongoing court proceedings.
- October 16, 2024: The Division Bench of the High Court passed the impugned order, directing Wikimedia to take down the pages.
- March 17, 2025: The Supreme Court issued notice in the special leave petition.
- May 09, 2025: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s takedown direction.
Parties Involved
- Appellant: Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
- Respondent: ANI Media Private Limited & Ors.
Procedural History
- Lower Court/Subordinate court/Tribunals Decisions: A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in a defamation suit, directed Wikimedia to disclose user information.
- Appeals: Wikimedia appealed the Single Judge’s order to a Division Bench of the High Court. During this appeal, the Division Bench issued the interim takedown order. Wikimedia then appealed the Division Bench’s takedown order to the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed
Not explicitly framed, but the central issue is the legality and propriety of the High Court’s direction to the appellant to take down/delete pages and discussions from its platform that commented on sub-judice matters.
Areas of Debate
- Whether media reports and public discussions about a sub-judice matter on an intermediary’s platform constitute interference with court proceedings or contempt of court.
- What is the correct balance between the principle of open justice and freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) on one hand, and the need to protect the administration of justice from prejudice on the other?
- Under what circumstances can a court issue a “takedown” or “prior restraint” order against a publication or platform?
Cases Cited
On behalf of the Appellant:
- Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India ((2012) 10 SCC 603):
- Relevance: Cited to argue that a court can only issue a postponement or prior restraint order against publication if there is a “real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the fairness of the trial.
- Judicial Consideration: The Supreme Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in this case to conclude that the High Court’s order was not justified, as no such risk was demonstrated.
On behalf of the Respondent:
NA
Acts/Rules/Orders Referred
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Type: Act
- Section 2(c): Defines “criminal contempt.” The High Court had formed a prima facie view that the publications on Wikimedia’s platform bordered on criminal contempt by interfering with a judicial proceeding.
- Information Technology Act, 2000
- Type: Act
- Section 2(1)(w) and Section 79: These sections define an “intermediary” and provide “safe harbour” protection, stating that an intermediary is not liable for third-party information hosted on its platform. The appellant argued it was merely an intermediary, but the Supreme Court declined to examine this issue as it could affect the pending suit.
- Constitution of India
- Type: Constitution
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The appellant argued the takedown order violated this right.
- Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include the “right to know.”
Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case
- Constitution of India
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Literature Citation
NA
Appearances
- Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Counsel
- Witnesses: NA
- Other Persons: NA
Prayer
The appellant prayed for the setting aside of the High Court’s order directing it to take down the specified pages and discussions.
Evidence & Findings
NA
Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments
The appellant argued that the High Court’s takedown order was an unreasoned and unwarranted violation of the freedom of speech and the right to open justice. The key arguments were:
- The appellant is merely an intermediary platform and not the author of the content, so it cannot be held responsible for violating the sub-judice principle.
- The High Court failed to establish that the content posed a “real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the trial, which is the necessary condition for issuing a prior restraint order.
- The order has a “chilling effect” on free speech and the public’s right to know.
- The content was derived from publicly available secondary sources.
Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments
The respondent argued that the airing of adverse comments about a pending case on the platform of a party to the suit clearly amounts to interference in court proceedings. They contended that the High Court’s interim order was justified to prevent pressure on the judiciary and that the Supreme Court should not interfere with it.
Ratio Decidendi
- The principle of open justice is a cornerstone of the judicial system. Courts, as public institutions, must be open to public debate and constructive criticism, even on matters that are sub-judice.
- A court can issue a prior restraint or postponement order against a publication only when it is necessary to prevent a “real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the fairness of a trial or the proper administration of justice. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate this risk.
- Judges should not be hypersensitive to criticism. While courts can and should take action for contempt if a publication scandalizes the court or imputes motives, it is not the duty of the court to act as a censor and tell the media what to delete or take down.
- A court’s reaction to potentially contemptuous material must be proportionate. In this case, the High Court’s direction to take down the content was a disproportionate reaction.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The directions contained in paragraph 5 of the High Court’s order dated October 16, 2024, are set aside. There is no order as to costs.
Legal Jargons and Maxims
- Sub-judice: A Latin term meaning “under a judge.” It refers to a matter that is currently under consideration by a court and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.
- Prima Facie: A Latin term meaning “at first sight.” It refers to a conclusion that is accepted as correct until proven otherwise.
- Prior Restraint: A form of censorship where the government or a court prohibits a publication or speech before it can take place.
Exhibits
NA