The Supreme Court held that Courts can direct media organisations to take down online content about an ongoing case only when it poses a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings.
ANI Media had filed a suit against the Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court, seeking the removal of allegedly defamatory content. A Single Judge’s order directing the disclosure of subscriber details was criticised on Wikimedia’s platform. A Division Bench directed Wikimedia to take down these pages, stating that they interfered with court proceedings.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. It ruled that the Court could not direct the removal of content in subjudice matters, unless it scandalises the Court, a Judge or is contemptuous. The right to know and receive information is a facet of Article 19(1)(a).
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v ANI Media Private Limited
9 May 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 656 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[7]
Bench: Justices A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Comment:
For the improvement of any system and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That 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
Key words/phrases: Validity of orders directing the removal of content in subjudice matters—valid if there is a substantial risk of interfering with Court proceedings—Article 19 upheld—Right to know—High Court Order set aside
Read the Judgement here.
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #subjudice #interferingcourtproceedings #Constitution #Article19 #righttoknow