The Supreme Court ruled that the Delhi High Court’s order directing Wikimedia to remove content criticizing judicial proceedings violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). Citing precedents like Sahara India Real Estate Corp., the Court held that prior restraint on publications must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality, and only apply if there’s a “real and substantial risk” to justice. It emphasized that open criticism of court proceedings, unless scandalizing or obstructing justice, is protected. The judgment reaffirmed intermediaries’ limited liability under IT Act Section 79, while cautioning courts against disproportionate takedown orders chilling free expression.
Facts Of The Case:
The case arose from a defamation suit filed by ANI Media Private Limited against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (operator of Wikipedia) and others before the Delhi High Court. ANI alleged that false and defamatory content about it was published on Wikipedia and sought its removal, along with disclosure of the identities of anonymous editors. On 20.08.2024, a Single Judge of the Delhi HC directed Wikimedia to disclose subscriber details of certain editors. Subsequently, Wikipedia hosted discussions and articles criticizing the order as “censorship” and a threat to free speech. ANI then complained that these posts interfered with judicial proceedings.
On 16.10.2024, a Division Bench of the Delhi HC ordered Wikimedia to remove the content within 36 hours, holding that it violated the sub judice principle and bordered on contempt. Wikimedia appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the takedown order violated free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and that, as an intermediary, it had no control over user-generated content. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 09.05.2025, set aside the Delhi HC’s order, ruling that prior restraint on speech must meet strict constitutional safeguards and that criticism of judicial proceedings, unless scandalizing the court, is protected under open justice principles.
Procedural History:
The case originated with ANI Media Private Limited filing a defamation suit (CS(OS) No. 524/2024) before the Delhi High Court against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and anonymous Wikipedia editors, seeking removal of allegedly defamatory content and disclosure of editor identities. On 20.08.2024, a Single Judge directed Wikimedia to disclose subscriber details of certain editors. When Wikimedia failed to comply, ANI filed a contempt application (IA No. 38498/2024). Meanwhile, Wikipedia hosted discussions and articles criticizing the court’s order, prompting ANI to allege interference in judicial proceedings. On 16.10.2024,
a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in FAO(OS) No. 146/2024, ordered Wikimedia to remove the content within 36 hours, citing violation of the sub judice principle and potential contempt. Wikimedia challenged this order in the Supreme Court via a special leave petition (Civil Appeal No. 5391/2025), arguing violations of free speech and intermediary protections. On 09.05.2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Delhi HC’s takedown order and reaffirming constitutional safeguards against prior restraint on speech.
Court Observation:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court made several key observations while overturning the Delhi High Court’s takedown order. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) includes the right to discuss and critique judicial proceedings, provided it does not scandalize the court or obstruct justice. Relying on precedents like Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), the Bench reiterated that prior restraint on publications is permissible only if there is a “real and substantial risk” to the fairness of proceedings, which was absent in this case. The Court noted that Wikimedia, as an intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act, cannot be compelled to remove third-party content unless it fails to comply with due legal process.
It criticized the Delhi HC’s disproportionate 36-hour takedown directive, observing that such orders chill free speech and undermine open justice, a cornerstone of democracy. The judgment also distinguished between fair criticism and contempt, holding that courts must tolerate public scrutiny while ensuring judicial dignity. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the sub judice principle cannot be invoked mechanically to suppress legitimate discourse on matters of public interest.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final decision dated 09.05.2025, allowed Wikimedia’s appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s order directing the takedown of Wikipedia content. The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, held that the High Court’s directive was a disproportionate restriction on free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as it failed to demonstrate a “real and substantial risk” to judicial proceedings as required by precedent.
The Court reaffirmed that intermediaries like Wikimedia cannot be held liable for third-party content under Section 79 of the IT Act, absent non-compliance with due legal process. Emphasizing the principle of open justice, the judgment clarified that criticism of court orders, unless scandalous or obstructive, is protected speech. The ruling underscored that courts must tolerate public scrutiny and avoid using the sub judice doctrine to suppress legitimate debate. No costs were awarded, and the appeal was disposed of with these observations, marking a significant precedent for digital free expression and intermediary rights in India.
Case Details:
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. Citation: (2025) INSC 656 (Supreme Court of India) Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 5391 of 2025 Date of Judgment: May 09, 2025 Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Download The Judgement Here