ANI vs Wikipedia: Not our duty to tell media to delete this, take that down, says Supreme Court, sets aside Delhi HC's order

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down, as it set aside the Delhi High Court's division bench direction to Wikimedia Foundation to delete page on discussions about the court proceedings in suit filed by the ANI.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised, for the improvement of any system that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key, which can happen only if there is a 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 court said.

Holding that the High Court's division bench had reacted disproportionately, the apex court said, courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. This has become more nuanced in the digital age, it highlighted.

"In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is subjudice before a court," the bench said.

However, those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, certainly courts should take action, the bench added.

"But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down," the bench said.

The division bench had on October 16, 2024 directed the Wikimedia Foundation Inc to take down and delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the court, finding the discussion on the observations made by the bench amount to interference in court proceedings and violation of the sub judice principle by a party to the proceeding and borders on contempt.

In a 37-page judgment, Justice Bhuyan wrote for the bench that this court in Imran Pratapgadhi Vs State of Gujarat (2025) highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of the courts to uphold such freedom. This court observed that sometimes judges may not like spoken or written words, but still, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

With regard to contours of criminal contempt, the bench said, definitely, if a member of the public or a litigant or for that matter even the media tries to scandalise the court by making sweeping unfounded allegations against the court or the judges or by imputing motives against the judge or judges who had passed a judicial order or had conducted the court proceedings, certainly the courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against such contemnors.

This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication as contempt of court is a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), the bench said.