The Supreme Court of India recently expressed concerns over the Delhi High Court's order directing the takedown of a Wikipedia page related to an ongoing defamation case filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia Foundation. The apex court questioned whether such a move was legally justified, emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech and media independence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took up the matter and observed that criticism and commentary on court proceedings are not uncommon. Justice Oka emphasized:
"In this Court, we say things, and somebody wants to comment upon it... this happens. Sometimes somebody says that you are sitting here with a preconceived mind or that you are not giving a hearing. People say things, and we have to tolerate it."
The bench raised concerns about the legality of the High Court’s directions in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order, stating that an order requiring the removal of material solely due to criticism of court observations might not be justified.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court had earlier directed the removal of the Wikipedia page titled Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. The High Court held that certain comments on the page were prima facie contemptuous, particularly a statement suggesting that a judge had threatened to shut down Wikipedia in India.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wikimedia, strongly opposed the High Court’s order, arguing that no specific finding on defamation had been made. He contended:
"It is just not possible. The concerned content was not even generated by Wikimedia but was sourced from an Indian Express article."
Justice Oka, responding to these arguments, pointed out that unless content is proven to be contemptuous through proper legal proceedings, directing its removal based on judicial criticism may not be appropriate.
"We can understand if there is contempt, and contempt is proved pursuant to notice. Somebody wants to purge the contempt, so he removes that content. But to tell somebody to remove something because there is some criticism of what the Court has done, that may not be correct."
ANI’s counsel countered that the individuals responsible for the controversial statements were not present in court. However, Justice Oka emphasized the broader issue at hand:
"You are missing an important point. Ultimately, this is the media. The question is about the freedom of the media."
The Court allowed ANI to submit a counter affidavit by the end of the month, providing a copy of the correct article for review.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Governing Board's Authority in Auroville Foundation Dispute
Background of the Case
The legal battle stems from ANI's defamation suit against Wikipedia, alleging that content questioning ANI’s editorial credibility was defamatory. ANI demanded Rs. 2 crores in damages and requested Wikipedia to remove the content. Additionally, the Delhi High Court ordered Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of three individuals who edited ANI’s Wikipedia page—an order Wikimedia contested.
On November 11, 2024, the Delhi High Court closed Wikimedia’s appeal against a single-judge order mandating the disclosure of these individuals' details. The decision followed a consent order resolving the matter, allowing Wikipedia to serve summons on the individuals while permitting ANI’s defamation suit to proceed.
Following the contested Wikipedia page’s removal, the Delhi High Court also closed ANI’s contempt plea against Wikimedia. Subsequently, a single-judge bench of the High Court issued summons to the three individuals accused of editing ANI’s Wikipedia page.
Case Details:
- Case No.: Diary No. 2483 / 2025
- Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited
