NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from Asian News International (ANI) after the Wikimedia Foundation challenged a Delhi High Court order directing the removal of a Wikipedia page documenting legal proceedings in a defamation suit titled Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns over the reasoning behind the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for judicial tolerance toward public scrutiny and its impact on media freedom.
ALSO READ: Assam’s New Era: ₹1,024 Cr Academy to Shape Future
ANI had sued Wikimedia for defamation, alleging that edits on its Wikipedia page describing it as a “propaganda outlet” for the central government had damaged its credibility. In July 2023, the Delhi High Court issued summons to Wikimedia, instructing it to disclose details of the users responsible for the modifications. When ANI later accused Wikimedia of failing to comply, the High Court ordered a Wikipedia representative to appear in person in September 2023.
The matter escalated when the High Court’s Division Bench—then led by Chief Justice Manmohan (now a Supreme Court judge) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela—objected to the existence of a Wikipedia page tracking the case’s proceedings, including courtroom statements. Arguing that such discussions could amount to contempt, the Bench directed its removal in October 2023.
Wikimedia challenged the order in the Supreme Court, where senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the directive was issued without an actual defamation verdict. The Supreme Court questioned the High Court’s sensitivity, noting that the Wikipedia page merely chronicled case updates and judicial remarks.
ALSO READ: SC asks Centre to reply on PIL over CAG appointment
“Judges must be more open to criticism, particularly in the digital era,” the Bench remarked. “If Wikipedia can be targeted today, similar actions might follow against other platforms tomorrow.”
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial restraint when addressing public discourse on court proceedings, framing the issue as a crucial test for press freedom. ANI’s legal counsel, advocate Sidhant Kumar, is expected to file a response before the next hearing on April 4.
The case underscores ongoing debates over judicial authority, digital platforms’ responsibilities, and the public’s right to access legal information. The Supreme Court’s ruling could set a precedent for how courts balance concerns over contempt with the need for transparency in the internet age.
