Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 656

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

In the digital age, where information spreads rapidly through online platforms, how does the principle of sub judice (matters awaiting judicial decision) apply to content hosted on these platforms? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving Wikimedia Foundation Inc., the organization behind Wikipedia, and ANI Media Private Limited. The core issue revolved around whether directing Wikimedia to take down content related to ongoing court proceedings infringed upon freedom of speech and expression. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

ANI Media Private Limited filed a suit against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and others, seeking to restrain them from publishing defamatory content. On August 20, 2024, a Single Judge of the High Court directed Wikimedia to disclose subscriber details of certain administrators. Subsequently, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express on September 17, 2024, discussing the case and its implications for freedom of speech. A video was also posted by Medianama on October 10, 2024, referencing the Judge’s warning to Wikimedia and discussing the impact on safe harbor protection and information flow.

Following these publications, the Division Bench of the High Court, on October 16, 2024, directed Wikimedia to take down pages and discussions related to the court proceedings, citing potential interference and violation of the sub judice principle. This order led Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Date Event
2024 ANI Media Private Limited filed a suit against Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
August 20, 2024 High Court directs Wikimedia to disclose subscriber details of administrators.
September 17, 2024 Opinion piece published in Indian Express discussing the case.
October 10, 2024 Medianama posts a video referencing the Judge’s warning to Wikimedia.
October 14, 2024 Talk page hosted on Wikimedia’s platform discussing ongoing proceedings.
October 16, 2024 High Court directs Wikimedia to take down pages and discussions related to court proceedings.
March 17, 2025 Special leave petition moved in the Supreme Court.
May 09, 2025 Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the High Court’s directions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions in its judgment:

  • Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This section defines criminal contempt as the publication of any matter or the doing of any act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The court referred to this section to delineate the contours of criminal contempt.

    • (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which — (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner

  • Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The appellant argued that the High Court’s direction violated this fundamental right.
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, which the appellant argued includes the right to open justice.
  • Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Provides exemptions for intermediaries from liability for third-party information.
See also  Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Rice Mill Deficit Case: Dwarika Das Rathi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018)

Arguments

Arguments by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (Appellant):

  • Wikimedia is merely an intermediary providing technical infrastructure and does not edit, update, or monitor the content on its platform.
  • The High Court failed to consider that the content hosted on its platform did not constitute a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the pending proceedings.
  • The direction to take down the pages was an unreasoned and unwarranted violation of the right to open justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and impinged upon the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
  • The contents of the pages were derived from publicly available secondary sources.
  • The order would have a chilling effect on free speech and the right to know, impinging upon the right to freely access and use the internet.

Arguments by ANI Media Private Limited (Respondent):

  • The High Court’s order was an interim measure, and the appeal should not be entertained.
  • Airing adverse comments on the platform of a party to the suit amounted to interference in court proceedings, justifying the High Court’s direction to take down the offending pages.

Submissions Table

Main Submission Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (Appellant) ANI Media Private Limited (Respondent)
Role of Wikimedia Intermediary providing technical infrastructure, not responsible for content. Platform airing adverse comments, interfering with court proceedings.
Risk of Prejudice No real and substantial risk of prejudice to pending proceedings. Comments interfere with court proceedings.
Freedom of Speech Take-down order violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Interim order, no violation of rights.
Source of Content Content derived from publicly available secondary sources. N/A
Chilling Effect Order has a chilling effect on free speech and right to know. N/A

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the direction of the High Court to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the High Court was legally valid and proper.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue How the Court Dealt With It
Legality and propriety of the High Court’s direction to take down content. The Court held that the High Court’s direction was disproportionate and set it aside, emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech and open justice.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision:

  • Reliance Petrochemicals Limited Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers [(1988) 4 SCC 592]: Regarding preventive injunctions against the press.
  • Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2012) 10 SCC 603]: On balancing freedom of the press and administration of justice.
  • Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1]: On restricting open justice in the interest of justice.
  • Swapnil Tripathi Vs. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639]: On live streaming of court proceedings and open justice.
  • Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 SCC OnLine SC 678]: On the importance of freedom of expression.
  • Ramesh Kumaran Vs. State [2025 SCC OnLine 667]: On the attitude of courts towards contempt.
  • Re S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339]: On the attitude of judges towards contempt of court.
  • Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Definition of criminal contempt.
  • Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Intermediary liability.
  • Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Freedom of speech and expression.
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty.

Authority Treatment Table

Authority How the Court Considered It
Reliance Petrochemicals Limited Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers [(1988) 4 SCC 592] Discussed the principle of preventive injunction against the press, noting that it can be granted only if necessary to keep the administration of justice unimpaired.
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2012) 10 SCC 603] Examined the constitutional balance between freedom of the press and administration of justice, emphasizing the need for a real and substantial risk of prejudice to justify postponing publication.
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1] Discussed restricting open justice in the interest of justice.
Swapnil Tripathi Vs. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639] Highlighted the importance of open justice and the right to access court proceedings, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.
Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 SCC OnLine SC 678] Emphasized the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of courts to uphold such freedom.
Ramesh Kumaran Vs. State [2025 SCC OnLine 667] Mentioned in the context of contempt, emphasizing the need for magnanimity and caution in initiating contempt proceedings.
Re S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339] Discussed the attitude of judges towards contempt of court, emphasizing the need for a wise economy in the use of contempt power.
See also  Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019)

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Party Treatment by the Court
Wikimedia is merely an intermediary providing technical infrastructure. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. The Court acknowledged the appellant’s contention but did not delve into it, as it might have a bearing on the pending suit.
The High Court failed to consider that the content hosted on its platform did not constitute a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the pending proceedings. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. The Court agreed that the High Court’s direction was disproportionate, implying that there was no real and substantial risk of prejudice.
The direction to take down the pages was an unreasoned and unwarranted violation of the right to open justice and impinged upon the freedom of speech and expression. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. The Court concurred, setting aside the High Court’s direction and emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech and open justice.
The contents of the pages were derived from publicly available secondary sources. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. The Court did not explicitly address this submission but emphasized the importance of debate and criticism, even on sub judice matters.
The order would have a chilling effect on free speech and the right to know, impinging upon the right to freely access and use the internet. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. The Court implicitly agreed, emphasizing the need to avoid actions that stifle freedom of speech and the right to know.
The High Court’s order was an interim measure, and the appeal should not be entertained. ANI Media Private Limited The Court rejected this argument by entertaining the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s direction.
Airing adverse comments on the platform of a party to the suit amounted to interference in court proceedings, justifying the High Court’s direction to take down the offending pages. ANI Media Private Limited The Court disagreed, holding that the High Court’s direction was disproportionate and that it is essential to balance freedom of speech with the administration of justice.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Reliance Petrochemicals Limited Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers [(1988) 4 SCC 592]: The Court used this case to highlight the principle that preventive injunctions against the press can only be granted if reasonable grounds necessitate it to keep the administration of justice unimpaired.
  • Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2012) 10 SCC 603]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need to strike a balance between freedom of the press and the administration of justice. It reiterated that postponement orders should be applied only when there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of the trial or the proper administration of justice.
  • Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1]: The Court cited this case to show that open justice is not absolute and can be restricted in its inherent jurisdiction to protect the interest and administration of justice.
  • Swapnil Tripathi Vs. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639]: This case was used to underscore the importance of open justice and the right to access court proceedings, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 SCC OnLine SC 678]: The Court cited this case to highlight the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of courts to uphold such freedom.
  • Ramesh Kumaran Vs. State [2025 SCC OnLine 667]: This case was mentioned in the context of contempt, emphasizing the need for magnanimity and caution in initiating contempt proceedings.
  • Re S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339]: The Court referred to this case to discuss the attitude of judges towards contempt of court, emphasizing the need for a wise economy in the use of contempt power.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decrees in Small Causes Court Cases: Arti Dixit & Anr vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors (2023) INSC 478 (18 May 2023)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited case was significantly influenced by the need to balance freedom of speech and expression with the principle of sub judice and the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that restrictions on freedom of speech should be minimal and only imposed when there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to ongoing judicial proceedings. The Court’s reasoning also reflected a commitment to open justice, transparency, and the importance of public debate and criticism, even on matters before the courts. The Court’s analysis of various precedents and legal principles demonstrates a careful consideration of constitutional values and the need to protect fundamental rights in the digital age.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Reason Percentage
Importance of Freedom of Speech and Expression 35%
Need for Open Justice and Transparency 25%
Balancing with the Principle of Sub Judice 20%
Minimal Restrictions on Speech 10%
Importance of Public Debate and Criticism 10%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case (Fact) 40%
Legal Considerations (Law) 60%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Legality of High Court’s direction to take down content
↓
Consideration of Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and Open Justice (Article 21)
↓
Assessment of Risk of Prejudice to Ongoing Proceedings
↓
Balancing Freedom of Speech with Administration of Justice and Sub Judice Principle
↓
Conclusion: High Court’s direction was disproportionate and set aside

Key Takeaways

  • Freedom of speech and expression are paramount, and restrictions should be minimal.
  • Open justice and transparency are essential for a healthy democracy.
  • Courts should be cautious in issuing orders that may stifle freedom of speech and the right to know.
  • Balancing freedom of speech with the administration of justice is crucial, especially in the digital age.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that directions to take down online content related to ongoing court proceedings should be carefully scrutinized to ensure they do not disproportionately infringe upon freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court reinforced the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the administration of justice, particularly in the context of online platforms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited clarifies the importance of upholding freedom of speech and expression while balancing it with the need to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. The Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s direction underscores the necessity for courts to exercise caution when issuing orders that could potentially stifle free speech and the right to access information, especially in the digital age.

Category

  • Constitutional Law
    • Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India
    • Article 21, Constitution of India
  • Information Technology Law
    • Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000
  • Contempt of Court
    • Section 2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Sub Judice
  • Open Justice

FAQ

  1. What was the main issue in the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited case?

    The main issue was whether directing Wikimedia to take down content related to ongoing court proceedings infringed upon freedom of speech and expression.

  2. What did the Supreme Court decide?

    The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to take down the content, emphasizing the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the administration of justice.

  3. What is the significance of this judgment?

    The judgment clarifies the importance of upholding freedom of speech and expression while balancing it with the need to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings, especially in the digital age.

  4. What is the principle of sub judice?

    The principle of sub judice refers to matters that are under judicial consideration and should not be prejudiced by public discussion or media coverage.

  5. What is Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?

    Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.

Source: Wikimedia Foundation vs. ANI Media