Background of the Case
- The case stemmed from a Delhi High Court order directing Wikimedia Foundation to delete a Wikipedia page on Asian News International (ANI).
- The content was allegedly defamatory and sub-judice, prompting the HC Division Bench to give a 36-hour takedown directive.
- The order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which delivered its verdict through Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary ,Governance)
Key Supreme Court Verdict Highlights
- Courts must not direct media to take down content — such directions are not within judicial duties.
- The HC order was deemed “disproportionate” and was set aside.
- Justice Bhuyan emphasized that courts and media are foundational pillars of democracy, and both should strengthen each other.
Upholding Free Speech
- The Court asserted that freedom of speech and expression is vital in a liberal democracy.
- Courts must not be seen as stifling debate or criticism, even if related to themselves.
- Constructive criticism and public debate are essential for the improvement of institutions, including the judiciary.
Media’s Role in Democracy
- The judgment acknowledged the media’s right to debate sub judice matters, provided criticism remains objective and fair.
- Courts should not be overly sensitive; judges cannot publicly respond to criticism, but that does not justify silencing the press.
Contempt and Exceptions
- Contempt of court is valid only if the content scandalizes the court or impairs justice.
- Courts may issue preventive injunctions against the press only when:
- There is a real, imminent threat to a fair trial.
- The publication would seriously impair the administration of justice.
Use of Postponement Orders
- Courts may postpone publication in exceptional cases to prevent prejudice to ongoing judicial proceedings.
- Such orders must pass the twin tests of:
- Necessity (real threat to justice)
- Proportionality (minimal and temporary restriction)
- Postponement orders should be time-bound, non-intrusive, and open to judicial challenge.
Broader Significance
- Reinforces constitutional values of free expression over reactionary censorship.
- Sends a clear message: Judicial integrity is not harmed by scrutiny or debate, but rather bolstered by transparency and accountability.
