The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, April 9, reserved its verdict in a case filed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The case challenged a Delhi High Court order that directed the removal of a Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation”, which was linked to a defamation suit filed by news agency ANI.
A two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter in detail. During the hearing, the bench critically examined the contents of the Wikipedia page and questioned whether the High Court had followed proper legal procedure in declaring the content as contemptuous.
“Prima facie what we feel is, we are not saying that Court is powerless to direct that some content should be removed. But there has to be first a prima facie finding recorded with reasons that what is published is contemptuous. So, condition precedent is a prima facie finding giving reasons why it amounts to contempt,”
— Justice Abhay Oka
The controversy began after the Delhi High Court objected to certain content on the Wikipedia page, especially a statement claiming that a judge had “threatened to shut down Wikipedia in India.” The High Court considered such remarks as interfering with the court proceedings.
However, Justice Oka questioned how the High Court could pass such an order without first establishing contempt.
“Suppose somebody says something about court proceedings before this court — only on the ground that we feel it is objectionable or we don’t like it — we can’t direct removal. Only if we come to a conclusion that this satisfies the well-settled test of contempt with a prima facie finding, then we can do it. Only because we don’t like it, we can’t do it,”
— Justice Abhay Oka
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Allegedly Defamatory Content About ANI on Wikipedia
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Wikimedia, explained that the statement in question was actually an oral remark made during the court hearing and reported by various media outlets, including Live Law and Indian Express. He added that the Wikipedia page simply cited the Indian Express article, which was authored by a visiting Harvard professor.
Sibal clarified that Wikimedia did not create the content. Instead, the content was contributed by Wikipedia users and included proper citations.
“You can't say there should be no discussion on court proceedings. We have an open justice system; this has a chilling effect. In the Sahara case, it is held that such orders can't be passed,”
— Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
Justice Oka agreed with this view and said that public officials, including judges, often face criticism and should not be easily offended.
“Mr. Sibal, we agree with you. Suppose somebody publishes a news item about me or my brother, saying that we threatened someone in court — we will not be bothered by it. The only thing is, a judge can't respond if somebody puts words in a judge’s mouth. Every day we hear that we are insensitive, etc. Why should we be bothered? But we can't say the same for someone else,”
— Justice Abhay Oka
Read Also:- Supreme Court Denies NewsClick's Plea on Tax Demand, Grants One-Week Protection to Move High Court
The Supreme Court also referred to a recent judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, where the same bench emphasized the judiciary’s duty to protect freedom of speech and expression, even when the content is not favorable to judges.
The matter stems from a defamation case filed by ANI (Asian News International) against Wikimedia Foundation. ANI alleged that its Wikipedia page contained defamatory content that affected its credibility and editorial practices. The news agency demanded damages of Rs. 2 crores and requested the removal of the content.
The Delhi High Court not only directed Wikimedia to remove the Wikipedia page but also ordered it to disclose the subscriber details of three individuals who had edited the page. Wikimedia contested this direction.
Later, on November 11, 2024, the Delhi High Court closed Wikimedia’s appeal against the earlier order regarding subscriber details after both sides agreed to a consent order. The court allowed Wikipedia to serve summons to the concerned individuals and permitted the single judge to proceed with the defamation suit as per the law.
Following the removal of the disputed Wikipedia page, the Delhi High Court also closed the contempt petition filed by ANI against Wikimedia.
Subsequently, the single judge bench of the Delhi High Court issued summons to the three users alleged to have edited ANI’s Wikipedia page.
Now, with the Supreme Court reserving its judgment, all eyes are on what stand it takes in balancing freedom of speech, open justice, and respect for court proceedings, especially in the digital and user-generated content space.
Case no. – SLP(C) No. 7748/2025 Diary No. 2483 / 2025
Case Title – Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited
