Win for Wikipedia as Supreme Court quashes Delhi High Court's order to takedown page on ANI v Wiki case

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside Delhi High Court's direction to Wikimedia Foundation to take down the page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation' which gave details about the legal dispute between the two entities. .The page in question documented the proceedings in the defamation case filed by ANI against Wikipedia in Delhi High Court. The High Court had last year taken objection to the page and said the discussion about the Court's observations would amount to contempt of court.The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan today allowed Wikipedia's appeal against the takedown order passed by High Court.We have no hesitation to hold that the direction issued by the High Court could not have been issued, the top court said."Such an order should be subject to the twin test of necessity and proportionality to be applied only in cases where there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, or to the fairness of the trial," it added.Pertinently, the Court said that it is not the job of judiciary to tell media to delete or take down content. "We may once again remind ourselves of the profound words of this Court expressed through the nine-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. Every important issue needs to be rigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court. However, those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalizes the court or a judge or judges, and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Krishna Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media, delete this, take that down," the Court said..The Court added that it would be open to the media to challenge such an order in appropriate proceedings. "A postponement order is not a punitive measure, but is a preventive measure," it further said..In a liberal democracy, judiciary and media must support each other.Supreme Court.The Court also emphasized that in a liberal democracy, judiciary and media must support each other."For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary. Introspection is the key. That can only happen if there is robust debate, even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other.".The Supreme Court has emphasized that introspection is vital for the improvement of any system, including the judiciary, and that such reflection is only possible through robust public debate—even on matters currently before the courts. .The top court has underlined that both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy and must function in a complementary manner to uphold the democratic framework enshrined in the Constitution. Addressing the evolving landscape in the digital age, the Court noted the complexities introduced by online platforms. While the appellant claimed protection as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, arguing it merely provides technical infrastructure without curating or moderating content, the Court chose not to examine this claim, citing its potential impact on an ongoing legal suit..In a significant observation reinforcing transparency and accountability, the Supreme Court has stated that courts, as public institutions, must remain open to public scrutiny, debate, and constructive criticism—even on matters that are sub judice. The Court underscored the importance of vibrant public and media discourse on key issues, asserting that such engagement is essential to a healthy democracy. However, the judgment also cautioned that while judges cannot publicly respond to criticism, any publication that scandalizes the court or its judges may invite contempt proceedings, if warranted. Importantly, the Court clarified that it is not the judiciary’s role to instruct the media to delete or take down content, marking a clear boundary between judicial integrity and press freedom..Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Akhil Sibal and advocates Nikhil Narendran and Tine Abraham from Trilegal, along with Advocates Vijayendra Pratap Singh and Abhijnan Jha from AZB & Partners appeared for Wikipedia.Advocate Sidhant Kumar appeared for ANI along with Advocate Sahil Tagotra..The top Court had earlier criticized the Delhi High Court for ordering takedown of the page. It had remarked that a takedown of a report about the High Court proceedings cannot be ordered just because the High Court judges do not like it."Suppose somebody says something about proceedings before this Court. Only on the ground that we don't like it we cannot direct removal. Only if we are satisfied the well settled place of contempt, we can direct. If we see that it is contemptuous, we can do it. But only because we don't like it, we cannot order removal," the apex court had said..The issue has its origin in a suit filed by ANI accusing Wikimedia Foundation of allowing defamatory edits on ANI's Wikipedia page. The page contained references to the news agency as a "propaganda tool" for the present Central government.The High Court issued summons to Wikipedia on July 9, 2024 and ordered it to disclose information about three people who made the edits on ANI's Wikipedia page. AANI later filed a contempt of court application before a single-judge of the High Court alleging that the order was not complied with.Justice Navin Chawla on September 5 took strong objection to Wikipedia's conduct and ordered an authorised representative of Wikipedia to be personally present in Court on October 25. Wikipedia then moved the division bench in appeal.When the matter came up before the division bench, it noted that a page had been created on the case itself. The High Court took strong objection to Wikipedia allowing the page to be published in relation to the case.The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan (who has since been elevated to the apex court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered Wikipedia to take down the page on ANI's case. Even though Wikipedia complied with the order, it also moved top court against the High Court order..Pertinently, the High Court had on April 2 passed an interim order directing Wikipedia to take down the alleged defamatory statements made on ANI's Wikipedia page . That order was also set aside by the Supreme Court on April 17. The suit alleging defamation is to be heard afresh now by a single-judge of the High Court..(Read Judgment)