Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of India set aside an interim order of the High Court of Delhi that ordered the removal of Wikipedia pages detailing an ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by the news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia Foundation. The case arose when the High Court considered Wikipedia’s publications as an interference with court proceedings and bordering on contempt. The Supreme Court held that the takedown order was a disproportionate infringement on freedom of speech and upheld the public’s right to access and comment on court proceedings. It emphasized that courts should not order blanket takedowns unless there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to justice and that takedown orders must meet a “test of necessity and proportionality” to be justified. Ultimately, the Court underscored the importance of open justice and freedom of expression, ruling in Wikimedia’s favor.

Facts

Asian News International (ANI), a prominent Indian news agency, initiated a defamation lawsuit (CS(OS) 524/2024) before the Delhi High Court against Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, among others. ANI alleged that several Wikipedia articles contained false and defamatory statements portraying it as a biased and unreliable news source with alleged links to political organizations, characterizing it as a propaganda tool for the government, and accusing it of distributing materials from fake news websites and misreporting events. Hence, ANI requested the court to restrain the defendants from publishing or republishing any false, misleading, or defamatory content against it. It also sought an injunction directing Wikimedia to refrain from publishing allegedly false and defamatory content on Wikipedia, thereby preventing its users and administrators from publishing further harmful content. ANI alleged that such defamatory and misleading content harmed its reputation. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. was named as Defendant No. 1. Defendants No. 2 to 4 are claimed to be the “Administrators” of Defendant No. 1.

On 20 August 2024, a single judge directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of certain Wikipedia administrators (Defendants 2 to 4) to ANI for the issuance of summons. Although Wikimedia denied any direct connection with these administrators, it was ordered to share the information.

ANI alleged Wikimedia did not comply with the order and filed an application under Section 151 of the 1908 Civil Procedure Code, seeking contempt proceedings against Wikimedia for disobeying the disclosure order. Around this time, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express (17 September 2024), criticizing the order and suggesting it threatened freedom of speech and could lead to the censorship of Wikipedia.

On 10 October 2024, a video by news agency Medianama reported the case, discussing how the court’s decision could affect safe harbor protections, freedom of expression, and the free flow of information. Later that week, on 14 October 2024, users of Wikipedia talk pages—forums within the Wikipedia portal where editors and contributors discuss and debate changes to an article’s content—debated about the ongoing proceedings between the parties before the High Court. They raised concerns about chilling effects on information sharing. ANI complained that such publications and discussions were intended to pressure the judiciary. It further argued that these spaces had been used to host discussions on the pending court proceedings, thereby amplifying the defamatory material.

On 16 October 2024, the Delhi High Court Division Bench held that the online content and forums interfered with court proceedings and violated the sub judice principle, a rule that prohibits public commentary likely to prejudice or interfere with ongoing judicial proceedings. It characterized the content as bordering on contempt and ordered Wikimedia to delete the pages and discussions within 36 hours.

Wikimedia appealed this order on 17 March 2025 before the Supreme Court of India, arguing that it was merely an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, with no editorial control over the content. Wikimedia contended that the High Court’s takedown order violated the right to free expression under articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, was disproportionate, and risked chilling free speech. ANI countered that the contested commentary hosted on Wikimedia’s platform clearly interfered with justice.

Decision Overview

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment for the Supreme Court of India on 9 May 2025. The central issue before the Court was whether the Delhi High Court’s interim order directing Wikimedia to delete Wikipedia pages and discussions concerning the ongoing ANI’s defamation lawsuit was valid. The Supreme Court clarified that it was not deciding on the merits of the defamation suit; rather, it focused solely on the legality of the High Court’s takedown order and whether it met constitutional standards.

Wikimedia argued that the High Court wrongly treated the availability of case-related material on Wikipedia as contempt or interference with court proceedings. To the appellant, Wikimedia functions merely as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, providing infrastructure without editing or monitoring user content. The material in question derived from secondary sources and publicly available discussions and was not authored by Wikimedia itself. Hence, it could not be regarded as a sub judice violation. Referring to the ruling in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012), Wikimedia highlighted that restrictions on reporting require proof of real and substantial risk to justice, which the High Court did not demonstrate. It further contended that the takedown order lacked reasoning, violated articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) and 21 (open justice guarantees) of the Indian Constitution, and risked chilling free speech and public access to information.

ANI, on the other hand, contended that since the publications and discussions were hosted on Wikimedia’s platform, adverse commentary during pending proceedings constituted an interference with justice that justified takedown orders. ANI argued that the order of the Division Bench was merely an interim order and therefore should not be disturbed at this stage.

The Supreme Court analyzed the impugned Wikipedia articles and their related talk pages, which summarized the litigation and referred to comments allegedly made by the single judge. The Court observed that robust debate, even about ongoing cases, forms part of open justice and democratic discourse.

To reach its decision, the Court relied on constitutional protections under articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (open justice) of the Constitution of India. It relied too on the case law outlined in Sahara India Real Estate Corp to argue that restrictions on freedom of expression require proof of a “real and substantial risk” to justice, which was not established in the case at hand.

Additionally, the Court analyzed Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt. Considering this, it recommended—referring to In Re S. Mulgaokar vs. Unknown (1978) and Lord Denning’s observations—that contempt powers must be exercised sparingly and judicial restraint is necessary. Harsh criticism should not attract censorship and does not by itself prejudice proceedings unless it creates a real and imminent danger to fairness, the Court opined. Citing Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers (1988), Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Court highlighted that free speech and open justice are essential constitutional values and courts must avoid overbroad restraints.

Considering this framework, the Court held that the High Court’s takedown order was disproportionate. To it, the order lacked reasoning on how the impugned pages posed a substantial risk to justice. Moreover, directing a wholesale deletion intruded upon the guarantees set forth in articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. While acknowledging Wikimedia’s claim of intermediary protection, the Court declined to decide on that issue since it was connected to the pending defamation suit. Nevertheless, the takedown direction was deemed unsustainable. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order requiring Wikimedia to remove the pages, holding that it was unnecessary and disproportionate. The appeal was therefore allowed, with no order as to costs.