TMT Case Law: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 09 May 2025

FACTS OF THE CASE

ANI Media Private Limited (“ANI”) filed a defamation suit, before the Delhi High Court, against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (“Wikimedia”), which operates Wikipedia, seeking INR 2 crore in damages, alleging that Wikipedia’s article on ANI contained false and defamatory statements damaging its reputation, accusing the news agency of distributing fake news, misreporting events, and acting as a ‘propaganda tool’ of the current government. ANI contended that these edits were made with malicious intent to harm its reputation and sought the removal of the contentious content, asserting that Wikimedia should be held accountable for the defamatory edits made by its anonymous contributors. ANI further prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing or republishing defamatory content and requested that all such material be removed from Wikipedia.

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed an order directing Wikimedia to disclose information about the individuals who allegedly made defamatory edits on ANI's Wikipedia page, within two weeks from the date of the said order. When Wikimedia failed to comply, ANI initiated contempt proceedings against Wikimedia, alleging non-compliance with the order.

Tensions escalated further when a new Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International v Wikimedia Foundation”, along with a “talk page”, was created. These pages provided a summary of the ongoing legal proceedings between ANI and Wikimedia, including references to courtroom exchanges. ANI subsequently alleged that the existence of this page amounted to interference with the judicial process and filed a contempt application in response.

Wikimedia filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Single Judge.

The Division Bench of the High Court held that the comments and discussion on the observations made by the Bench amount to interference in court proceedings and violation of the sub judice principle by a party to the proceeding and that the content borders on contempt. It therefore directed Wikimedia to take down or delete the said pages and discussions, calling it ‘contemptuous’ and a ‘risk to fair trial’.

Wikimedia filed its case in the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court’s orders that required Wikipedia to remove allegedly defamatory content about ANI and to take down Wikipedia articles documenting the ongoing litigation between ANI and Wikimedia. Wikimedia argued that these takedown orders were overly broad, disproportionate, and infringed on fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

THE PRIMARY ADJUDICATION POINT

The Supreme Court of India, in the present petition, deliberated upon the legality and propriety of the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court made in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, instructing the appellant to take down / delete the pages and discussions with regard to the observations made in the said order. It refrained from making any comments on the merit of the legal dispute between the parties relating to the defamatory edits on ANI’s Wikipedia page, which is still sub judice in the Delhi High Court.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION

Wikimedia appealed the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court, contending that:

1. Intermediary Protection (safe harbor) - Wikimedia contended that it functions merely as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It asserted that it has the limited role of providing technical infrastructure to host the platform, and it neither publishes nor monitors the content on its platform and therefore cannot be held liable for third-party information hosted on Wikipedia.

2. User-generated content - Wikimedia argued that it operated merely as an author/hosting platform and the content hosted on the pages was derived from publicly available secondary sources. It argued that the Wikipedia page summarizing the litigation was based on publicly available sources and constituted legitimate commentary and reporting on ongoing judicial proceedings and did not amount to contempt or interference with judicial proceedings.

3. Violation of free speech and knowledge access - Wikimedia further stressed that the High Court’s takedown order violated constitutional protections, including the freedom of speech and expression and the right to know, as well as the right to freely access and use the internet. Wikimedia contended that issuing such directions would stifle public discourse and erode digital freedoms, which are essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

4. Necessity and Proportionality - Wikimedia argued that any court-ordered removal of content must adhere to the constitutional principles of necessity and proportionality. Such restrictions should only be imposed when there is a clear and substantial threat to the fairness of judicial proceedings, not simply because the content is unfavourable or critical.

   1. Wikimedia further contended that the directive to eliminate “all false, misleading, and defamatory content” was excessively broad and ambiguous, making it impractical to enforce with precision.

SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT

In a landmark ruling reinforcing free speech and intermediary rights in the digital era, the Supreme Court of India upheld the appeal filed by Wikimedia, overturning the order of the Delhi High Court. Supreme Court’s reasoning and findings are enumerated below:

1. Constitutional Standards for Content Removal - The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order constituted a disproportionate interference with the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). It emphasized that such limitations on expression are impermissible unless they meet strict constitutional standards and therefore cannot be legally sustained.

2. Necessity and Proportionality - In delivering its verdict, the Supreme Court underscored that public criticism of ongoing judicial proceedings does not automatically amount to contempt of court unless it either undermines the authority of the judiciary or poses a tangible threat to the administration of justice. The Court reaffirmed that open justice is fundamental to a democratic legal system and cautioned against an overly sensitive judicial response to public discourse. It made clear that courts should refrain from imposing restrictions that resemble censorship unless such actions are demonstrably justified under the constitutional principles of necessity and proportionality. Referring to the precedent in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI, it emphasized that restrictions are justified only when there exists a “real and substantial risk” to the fairness of judicial proceedings. It concluded that the Delhi High Court’s orders failed to establish such a risk, rendering them constitutionally unsustainable.

3. Overbreadth and vagueness of High Court orders- the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had acted beyond its jurisdiction by ordering the takedown of Wikipedia pages without sufficient justification or legal foundation. The Court emphasized that any direction to remove online content must be precisely defined, supported by cogent reasons, and must fall squarely within the permissible limitations under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s directions, such as to remove “all false, misleading, and defamatory content”, to be overly broad, vague, and incapable of precise implementation. The Court set aside the order requiring takedown of the Wikipedia article about the litigation, noting that such reporting is protected unless it meets the high threshold for restriction.

4. Criticism, Open Justice, and Sub Judice-The Court emphasized that courts are public institutions and must remain open to public observation, debate and criticism. It clarified that content which is simply critical or unflattering regarding ongoing proceedings does not justify censorship or contempt proceedings, unless it actually scandalizes the court or significantly disrupts the administration of justice. The judgment also cautioned against courts reacting too sensitively to criticism, warning that imposing disproportionate restrictions could suppress healthy debate and erode the public’s right to information. Citing the precedent of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that “a trial held subject to public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice”.

5. Intermediary Status- The Supreme Court did not issue a conclusive ruling on Wikimedia’s intermediary status due to the underlying defamation suit still being pending before the Delhi High Court.

   
   

In conclusion, the court held that public debate is an essential element of democracy and every matter of public importance should be subject to it even if it is sub judice before a court. The courts are empowered to take action when such debate or criticism tends to scandalise it beyond condonation. However, “it is not the duty of the court to tell media: delete this, take that down.”

OUR OBSERVATION

The Supreme Court’s observations in Wikimedia vs ANI strongly favored open justice, free speech, and the right to public scrutiny of judicial proceedings, setting a high bar for any court-ordered removal of online content.

---

In case of feedback, suggestions, or queries, please reach out to the C&M team on

tmt@chandhiok.com