In the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.1, the Supreme Court of India ("the Supreme Court") struck down an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi ("the High Court") that directed Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("Wikimedia") to take down alleged defamatory content from its online platform ("Impugned Order"). This decision of the Supreme Court highlights that courts cannot direct the removal of content in sub judice matters, unless the content poses a real and imminent risk to the fairness of the court proceedings, scandalizes the court or the judge or is contemptuous in nature.
Background of the Case
This case arose out of a Special Leave Petition ("SLP") filed by Wikimedia, praying that the Supreme Court strikes down the Impugned Order passed by the High Court. Previously, ANI Media Private Limited ("ANI") had instituted a suit before the High Court pursuant to a page pertaining to ANI on Wikimedia's platform, Wikipedia. Thereafter, an opinion piece was published in the E-edition of the Indian Express titled, "why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information", following which the piece was hosted on the platform of Wikimedia. Subsequently, a talk page was hosted on Wikimedia's platform which initiated discussions about the ongoing proceedings between the parties before the High Court.
ANI sought an order from the High Court, restraining Wikimedia from posting, publishing, uploading, writing, speaking, distributing and/ or republishing any false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI on any platform. ANI also prayed that the High Court passes an injunction against Wikimedia and its agents to remove all false, misleading and defamatory content available on its platform which could tarnish the reputation of ANI, and to further restrain its users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against ANI on its platform.
The Impugned Order was then passed by the High Court, wherein it was stated that the sub judice principle, prima facie, seemed to have been violated with impunity by Wikimedia. Moreover, the order also stated that the discussion on observations made in the ongoing proceedings amounted to interference in the proceedings and approached the threshold of contempt of court. Accordingly, Wikimedia was directed to take down the pages and discussion with regard to observations made by the High Court. Pursuant to the Impugned order, the SLP was filed by Wikimedia before the Supreme Court.
The Sub Judice Principle and its Violation
The sub judice principle prohibits the media from publishing information that may alter the course and results of a trial. Based on this principle, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers2, formulated the principle of preventive injunction. A postponement order, which is analogous to preventive injunction and is thus, rooted in the sub judice principle, temporarily restricts media from publishing prejudicial content to protect the fairness of ongoing proceedings.
To determine the criterion for violation of the sub judice principle, the Supreme Court relied on its decision in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India3, wherein, the Constitution Bench held that a postponement order for publication may be provided in the event of such violation, subject to a twofold criterion. Firstly, there should be a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice and secondly, no reasonable alternative methods are there to prevent the risk to fairness of the trial.
The Judgement
The Supreme Court observed that courts, as public institutions, must always remain open to public debates and criticisms. Moreover, every pertinent issue needs to be vigorously debated by the public and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court. The Indian legal system subscribes to the principle of open justice and the right to access justice flowing from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution would be meaningful only if the public gets access to the proceedings unfolding before the courts. Additionally, the right to know and receive information is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that sometimes Judges may not like spoken or written words, but still, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
However, if a publication scandalizes the court or the judges, and if the actions constitute contempt, then courts must take action. The Supreme Court also stated that courts, as an institution are not dutybound to direct the media to take down content. Thus, the Supreme Court established that the High Court had reacted disproportionately while issuing the Impugned Order, in which it declared that Wikimedia had violated the sub judice principle, and pursuantly, set aside the same.
Postponement Order: Punitive or Preventive?
In the context of the sub judice principle, the Supreme Court also referenced postponement orders and addressed whether a restraint on media through such an order would amount to interference with the freedom of press.
To answer the same, the Supreme Court rightly stated that a postponement order is a "neutralizing device" evolved by the courts to neutralize conflicts between freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Rather than letting one constitutional value override the other, the judiciary must balance them, particularly in sensitive sub judice matters, like ongoing criminal trials or civil suits of a wide public interest.
If the media makes unfounded allegations against the court or the judges, courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the contemnors. This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication, as contempt of court would be a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
However, the Supreme Court also observed that not every sub judice comment or media report attracts a postponement order, and the same must be subjected to the twin tests of necessity and proportionality. Necessity would mean that there must be no other reasonable alternative that would protect the fairness of the proceedings, whereas, proportionality would mean that the restriction, must be narrow in scope and the least restrictive of the right to free speech. Moreover, the same is to be applied only in cases where there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Thus, courts must not act based on hypothetical or ambiguous concerns, purely based on discomfort with criticism.
The Supreme Court also affirmed that postponement orders would be open to challenge by the media entities through appropriate legal proceedings, which would ensure accountability against judicial overreach. Thus, the decision clarified that postponement orders are not meant to punish or silence dissent, but rather safeguard judicial impartiality temporarily, and only when no alternate lesser remedy exists. The High Court in its Impugned Order had crossed into punitive territory by directing Wikimedia to delete the content without any finding of real and imminent prejudice. In this decision, the Supreme Court rightly held that such a step failed the twin tests of necessity and proportionality and was not aligned with the preventive spirit of postponement orders.
Conclusion
The media serves as a vital intermediary between the state and the public and plays an essential role in nurturing the foundation of democracy. The right to report, critique and even challenge judicial proceedings, even of the highest court of the land must be preserved within the bounds of reasonability. At the same time, if such critique crosses into the realm of malicious, offensive or intimidatory attacks on judicial integrity, the court retains the authority to invoke contempt or the principles of sub judice. Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Wikimedia decision strikes a necessary balance by preserving the judiciary's dignity without undermining constitutional freedoms.
Footnotes
1. 2025 INSC 656.
2. (1988) 4 SCC 592.
3. (2012) 10 SCC 603.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
