The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the importance of public debate and media scrutiny, emphasizing that courts, as open and public institutions, must remain accessible to observations, discussions, and constructive criticism. This significant observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Court clarified that even when a matter is sub judice (under judicial consideration), it is essential for critical issues to be freely discussed by the public and the media. According to the bench, "Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court."
Highlighting the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and the media, the Supreme Court described both institutions as "foundational pillars" of India's democratic framework. The bench further stated, "For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other." This view underscores the need for transparency and accountability, where courts must not only deliver justice but also remain open to public scrutiny.
The Case of Wikipedia and ANI
This observation by the Supreme Court came while it set aside a Delhi High Court order that had labeled the Wikipedia page of news agency ANI's defamation case as "prima facie contemptuous." The High Court had directed the removal of the page, citing the alleged defamatory remarks against ANI.
Read also: Supreme Court: PMLA Accused Has Right to Be Heard Before Court Takes Cognizance Under BNSS
Challenging this decision, the Wikimedia Foundation approached the Supreme Court. The apex court clarified that while criticism of the judiciary is permissible, it should not cross into contempt. The judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan noted:
"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 vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court."
The Court further added that while constructive criticism is essential, those who offer such criticism must remember that judges cannot directly respond to it. However, if any publication scandalizes the court or its judges, and a case of contempt is established, the courts have the authority to take action.
Read also: Supreme Court Demotes Andhra Deputy Collector for Defying HC, Fines Him ₹1 Lakh for Slum Demolition
Justice Bhuyan emphasized that for the improvement of any system, including the judiciary, introspection is crucial. This can only be achieved through robust public debate, even on matters pending before the courts. The Court's approach highlights its commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability while maintaining the dignity of the judiciary.
Case no. – SLP(C) No. 7748/2025 Diary No. 2483 / 2025
Case Title – Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited
