Not our duty to tell media what to delete, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Delhi High Court’s order directing Wikipedia to remove a page on Asian News International’s (ANI) defamation proceedings, declaring that “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media to ‘delete this, take that down’”.

A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan reaffirmed media freedom and the principle of open justice, emphasising that the judiciary and press must supplement each other for democracy to flourish.

“Courts, as public institutions, must remain open to public scrutiny, observation, and debate, even more so in the digital age,” the bench stated.

While avoiding examination of digital intermediaries’ liability for third-party content, the Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court had acted disproportionately.

“We are firmly of the view that the division bench’s directions were disproportionate. We find no hesitation in concluding that such directions ought not to have been issued,” the court said.

The bench emphasised that judicial proceedings, even if sub judice, can be discussed in the public domain and reported by the press. It reiterated that restrictions on such discussions must be narrowly tailored, based solely on necessity and proportionality.

“For the improvement of any system, including the judiciary, introspection is key. That can only happen if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court,” the bench observed.

The court underscored that press freedom is a facet of citizens’ fundamental right to free speech and expression, including the right to receive information from different sources. “In essence, freedom of expression embodies the right to know,” it stated.

While acknowledging that scandalous content can invite contempt, the court distinguished that mere criticism or public discussion of judicial proceedings does not constitute contempt unless presenting a clear and present “danger to the administration of justice”. The bench found no prima facie instance of contempt in this case.

The dispute stemmed from ANI’s defamation suit against Wikipedia over allegedly damaging content on its page titled “Asian News International”. ANI subsequently filed a contempt petition challenging content on a separate Wikipedia page chronicling the Delhi High Court proceedings.

On April 2, a single bench of the Delhi HC directed Wikimedia Foundation to remove allegedly defamatory statements against ANI. A division bench upheld this ruling on April 8, stating Wikipedia could not claim immunity based on intermediary status.

While Wikipedia complied with the High Court’s take down order, it challenged it before the Supreme Court, which questioned the legal foundation of the High Court’s directive, calling it overly broad and lacking specificity.

On April 17, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, describing the direction to remove “all false, misleading and defamatory content” as “broadly worded and incapable of implementation”. The court granted ANI liberty to approach the HC afresh for interim relief by pointing to specific objectionable portions.

In Friday’s detailed order, the Supreme Court relied on key precedents including the Sahara vs SEBI case, which established that postponement of media reporting on judicial proceedings can only be ordered when necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial, subject to the tests of necessity and proportionality. It also cited the nine-judge bench decision in the 1966 Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case affirming the importance of open court proceedings in upholding public confidence in the judiciary.

Wikimedia, represented by senior counsels Kapil Sibal and Akhil Sibal, argued that Wikipedia content is user-generated rather than created by the Foundation itself. They pointed out that the statement flagged by the High Court, that a judge had allegedly threatened to shut down Wikipedia in India, was a quote from a published news article and not an unverified user comment.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the High Court’s characterisation that Wikipedia bore a “higher responsibility” as an encyclopaedia and that it had fiduciary duties to prevent defamation. The court held that such reasoning failed to acknowledge Wikipedia’s functioning as a user-moderated platform protected by intermediary safe harbour provisions under the Information Technology Act.