'Not Court's Duty To Tell Media To Delete' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page About ANI's Case

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated the principle that Courts are open institutions to the public and the media reporting about judicial proceedings cannot be curbed lightly.

Courts as a public institution should always be open to the public, and the issues which are even sub judice can be debated by the public and the press, the bench held.

"It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media to delete this and take that down... Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both should supplement each other," Justice Bhuyan read out from the judgment.

The judgment relied on the judgment in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India  (2012) 10 SCC 603 which held that the Courts can order the postponement of the reporting of judicial proceedings but only if the applicant demonstrates substantial risk of prejudice on the pending trial. It was held in Sahara that the court 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 will be approrpiate only in cases where the balancing tests otherwise favour the non-publication for a limited period. The postponement order is not a punitive measure but it is a preventive measure, the Court had held in Sahara.

The judgment also referred to the 9-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Mahrashtra, where it is held that a "trial held subject to public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in objectivity and impartiality of the administration of Justice."

Drawing from these precedents, the Court observed :

"The court as a public and open institution must always remain open to public observation, debate and criticism. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. Every important issue needs to be debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is the subject of proceedings before a court.

However, those offering criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism. If a publications scandalizes the court or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, certainly the court should take action.

But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media to delete this, take that down. For the improvement of any system and that includes the judiciary, introspection is key. That can only happen if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court."

The Wikimedia Foundation filed the present petition challenging an order of the Delhi High Court directing the takedown of a Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International v. 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.

While issuing notice, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the High Court's observation that the content amounted to interference with ongoing court proceedings, and the direction to remove material simply because it criticized the High Court. The Supreme Court questioned how the High Court could have passed the order without contempt being proved.

Background

The dispute began with a defamation suit filed by Asian News International (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 crores and removal of the material.

On November 11, 2024, the Delhi 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 Court reserved judgment on April 9, 2025.

Subsequently, the Delhi High Court single judge 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 High Court division bench 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 to prevent users and administrators from publishing defamatory content.

However, the Supreme Court set aside the injunction orders passed by the Delhi High Court observing that the High Court's direction "to remove all false, misleading and defamatory content" was "very broadly worded" and not capable of being implemented.

Senior Advocates Akhil Sibal, Kapil Sibal, Advocates Nikhil Narendran and Tine Abraham appeared for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 7748/2025 Diary No. 2483 / 2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550

Case Title – Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment