Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Expression, Quashes Delhi HC’s Take-Down Order Against Wikimedia in Landmark Free Speech Case

The apex court was hearing a civil appeal by special leave filed by Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit entity that hosts Wikipedia, against an interim order dated October 16, 2024, issued by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had ordered the take-down of a Wikipedia article and its associated talk page discussing a defamation suit filed by ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. against Wikimedia and others.

Background: ANI v. Wikimedia

The dispute originated from a civil defamation suit initiated by ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court (CS (OS) No. 524/2024). ANI alleged that certain Wikipedia content falsely portrayed its editorial standards and misrepresented the court's observations in an ongoing proceeding. It sought permanent removal of the material and injunctive relief against future publications.

The High Court, while issuing its interim directive, opined that the content hosted on Wikipedia appeared to interfere with the administration of justice, violated the sub judice principle, and was potentially borderline contemptuous. Despite Wikimedia’s counsel clarifying that the Foundation merely provides technical infrastructure and does not author or edit content, the High Court ordered removal of the content within 36 hours.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court confined itself to the legality and proportionality of the High Court's direction, without entering into the underlying merits of the defamation claim.

Wikimedia’s counsel argued that:

It is an intermediary under Indian law and cannot be held responsible for user-generated content unless it fails to comply with due takedown procedure post-notice.

The articles in question were based on publicly available, verifiable sources and did not amount to any prejudice to judicial proceedings.

The High Court’s order lacked reasoned analysis, failed to establish real and substantial risk to justice, and violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

Such vague and sweeping directions could create a chilling effect on online discourse, particularly academic or public interest commentary on court proceedings.

ANI, on the other hand, contended that the interim order was preventive and aimed at preserving the sanctity of ongoing legal proceedings, especially when one of the litigants could be using digital platforms to influence public opinion or judicial perception.

Judicial Principles Reaffirmed

In a carefully crafted judgment, the Supreme Court referred to several landmark rulings:

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express (1988): This case laid the foundation that prior restraints on press freedom should only be imposed when there is a clear and imminent danger to the administration of justice.

Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012): The Court reiterated that postponement orders or restrictions on reporting should only be employed when there is a real and substantial risk to fairness of trial, and must satisfy the principles of necessity and proportionality. Importantly, such restrictions must not override free speech arbitrarily.

Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018): The Court reaffirmed the principle of open justice and emphasized that live streaming and greater public access to judicial proceedings strengthen transparency and judicial accountability.

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025): In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court underscored that courts must uphold freedom of speech, even in cases of dissent, satire, or public criticism of the judiciary, so long as it does not scandalize the court or obstruct justice.

The Court’s Findings

The bench noted that the High Court had failed to analyze how the Wikimedia content in question posed a substantial threat to the fairness of proceedings or amounted to contempt of court. It observed that any restriction on free speech, especially involving intermediary liability and digital platforms, requires careful judicial scrutiny and must be backed by specific reasons.

“Sweeping take-down orders without demonstrating actual prejudice or risk to justice fail the constitutional threshold under Article 19(2),” the Court remarked. It further cautioned against issuing vague or broad injunctions, particularly in a digital ecosystem where platforms rely on community-generated content and voluntary editorial policies.

Importantly, the Court rejected the idea that mere commentary on ongoing judicial proceedings—even if authored by a litigating party—automatically warrants gag orders or takedown directions.

Ramesh Kumaran v. State – A Related Insight

The bench also referred to its judgment in Ramesh Kumaran v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine 667, a case where two lawyers had filed criminal complaints against each other and sought media restraint. One party even threatened suicide if proceedings were quashed. While the Court condemned the use of such tactics, it emphasized that criticism of the judiciary, even if sharp or uncomfortable, must not be silenced unless it crosses the threshold of scandalizing the court or obstructing justice.

The Court referred to classic precedents like Re Mulgaokar and observations by Justice Krishna Iyer, to reiterate that contempt powers should be used sparingly, with utmost caution and only in serious cases.

It also stressed that the role of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act continues to evolve and must be dealt with sensitively, especially as broader issues on digital regulation are pending adjudication.

Judgment and Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found the Delhi High Court’s interim order to be unreasoned, disproportionate, and constitutionally infirm. It lacked proper application of judicial mind to the Sahara India test of necessity and proportionality.

Accordingly, the impugned direction was quashed, and the appeal by Wikimedia Foundation was allowed. No costs were imposed.

This decision is being hailed as a watershed moment for online free speech, platform neutrality, and the principle of open justice. It reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that restrictions on expression—particularly in the digital space—must be narrowly tailored, necessary, and backed by a compelling public interest.

Legal experts have noted that this verdict will have far-reaching implications for future content moderation disputes, especially where judicial commentary intersects with the public's right to know.