Introduction
In a landmark judgment delivered on May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the importance of open critique of judicial proceedings in a democracy. The case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. (2025 INSC 656) addressed the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the administration of justice, ultimately coming down firmly on the side of free speech.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a defamation suit filed by ANI Media Private Limited against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. before the Delhi High Court. The High Court had directed Wikimedia to disclose subscriber details of certain administrators and later ordered the takedown of pages on the Wikimedia platform that contained commentary about ongoing court proceedings.
The High Court’s Division Bench had observed that comments on its platform about court proceedings amounted to “interference in Court proceedings” and “violation of the subjudice principle by a party to the proceeding” that “borders on contempt.” Consequently, it directed Wikimedia to “take down/delete the said pages and discussion” within 36 hours.
Wikimedia challenged this directive before the Supreme Court, arguing that as an intermediary providing technical infrastructure, it was not the author of the content and therefore could not be said to have violated the subjudice principle.
Key Holdings
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, writing for the bench, set aside the High Court’s takedown order, finding that the Division Bench had “reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions.”
The judgment includes an extensive analysis of the jurisprudence on freedom of expression, open justice, and the subjudice principle. The Court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012), which established that postponement orders curtailing expression should be passed only when there is “real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice.”
The Importance of Open Justice
The Court emphasized that open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system, as it instills faith in the judicial and legal system. Quoting from Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the judgment highlighted that the right to access justice flowing from Article 21 would be meaningful only if the public gets access to court proceedings.
The judgment specifically references Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion in Swapnil Tripathi, where he concluded that “live streaming of court proceedings is a significant instrument for enhancing the accountability of judicial institutions and of all those who participate in the judicial process. It will result in the dissemination of information in the widest possible sense, imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial process. Above all, sunlight is the best disinfectant.” This powerful metaphor, originally attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, encapsulates the idea that transparency and openness are the most effective ways to ensure integrity in public institutions, including the judiciary.
Justice Bhuyan noted that public trial in an open court is “undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice.” Such transparency acts as a check against judicial caprice and serves as a powerful instrument for creating public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice.
Freedom to Criticize the Judiciary
Drawing from Justice Krishna Iyer’s concurring opinion in In Re S. Mulgaokar (1978), the Court reiterated that “to criticise the Judge fairly, albeit fiercely, is no crime but a necessary right, twice blessed in a democracy.” The judgment endorsed Justice Iyer’s principle that “Judges should not be hypersensitive even when distortions and criticisms overstep the limits.”
The Court made a powerful declaration: “Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism.” It further asserted that “Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is subjudice before a court.”
Balancing Rights
While recognizing the importance of free speech, the Court acknowledged that limits exist. If a publication scandalizes the court or if a case of contempt is made out, courts should certainly take action. However, as the Court pointedly observed, “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down.”
In a particularly insightful passage, the Court noted:
“For the improvement of any system and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other.”
Implications for Digital Platforms
Although the Court declined to determine Wikimedia’s status as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as it might impact the pending suit, this judgment has significant implications for digital platforms. The Court’s approach suggests that platforms hosting third-party content about judicial proceedings should generally be protected from takedown orders unless the content clearly poses a “real and substantial risk” to the administration of justice.
Conclusion
This judgment stands as a significant milestone in India’s jurisprudence on freedom of expression and open justice. It reaffirms that in a democracy, courts must not only tolerate but welcome criticism and debate, even about ongoing proceedings. As the court wisely noted, quoting Justice Chandrachud, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The Supreme Court’s approach demonstrates a remarkable judicial maturity and confidence, acknowledging that the legitimacy of the judiciary is strengthened, not weakened, by open critique. By setting aside the High Court’s disproportionate takedown order, the Supreme Court has made a powerful statement that in the digital age, the principles of free speech and open justice remain as vital as ever.
This judgment will likely be celebrated by free speech advocates, digital rights organizations, and all who believe in the value of transparent, accountable institutions in a democratic society.
