Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Direction To Wikimedia To Take Down Pages; Holds Order Was Disproportionate

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. challenging the Delhi High Court’s order that directed the foundation to take down certain Wikipedia pages and discussion threads within 36 hours for allegedly violating the subjudice principle and “bordering on contempt.” The narrow issue before the Supreme Court was the legality and propriety of paragraph 5 of the High Court’s order dated 16.10.2024.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench’s injunction-like direction. It held that the High Court reacted disproportionately in ordering the takedown and that such a direction could not have issued in the absence of the requisite justification. The Court emphasised the constitutional balance between open justice and freedom of speech, noted established tests for postponement or restraint on publication, and warned against using courts’ powers to stifle media or public debate. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This Court concluded that a postponement order is a neutralizing device evolved by the courts to balance interests of equal weightage viz freedom of expression vis-a-vis freedom of trial. However, this Court observed that given that postponement orders curtail the freedom of expression of third parties, such orders have to be passed only in cases in which there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice. Therefore, such orders of postponement should be ordered for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the publication. It should be passed only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings… A postponement order is not a punitive measure but is a preventive measure.” The Court further stressed that “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down.”

Background The dispute arose from a defamation suit filed by ANI Media Private Limited (CS (OS) No. 524/2024) against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and others. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 20.08.2024 directed Wikimedia (defendant No.1) to disclose subscriber details of certain administrator accounts so that summons could be served. The plaintiff later sought contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience and registered I.A. No. 38498 of 2024. Opinion pieces and a video discussing the Single Judge’s remarks and the possible impact on freedom of speech were published and hosted on Wikimedia’s platform; a Wikipedia article page and a corresponding “talk” page contained discussion of the ongoing litigation and comments about the judge’s reported observations.

On appeal under Section 104 Civil Procedure Code, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted the publication on Wikipedia and found, prima facie, that the comments and talk-page discussions “amount to interference in court proceedings” and “border on contempt,” directing Wikimedia to take down the pages within 36 hours. Wikimedia moved this appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the legality and reasonableness of that takedown direction. The Supreme Court limited its consideration to the legality and propriety of paragraph 5 of the High Court order, and did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying defamation suit.

In its judgment the Supreme Court reviewed earlier precedents including Reliance Petrochemicals, Sahara India Real Estate (on postponement orders and the twin tests of necessity and proportionality), Swapnil Tripathi (on open justice and live-streaming), Imran Pratapgadhi (on protection of free speech), and authorities on contempt (Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar; Re S. Mulgaokar; Ramesh Kumaran). The Court reiterated that open courts and the “right to know” are vital but not absolute; restrictions such as postponement orders may be permissible only where there was a “real and substantial risk” to the fairness of proceedings and where necessity and proportionality were demonstrated. Applying these principles, the Court found the High Court’s direction to be unreasoned and disproportionate and accordingly set aside paragraph 5 of the impugned order. The appeal was allowed and there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 656 Case Title: WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. Vs. ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): (Names/designations not specified in the judgment)