In Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.(2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the civil appeal. It concluded:" we are of the firm view that the Division Bench had reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions....we have no hesitation in our mind that such directions could not have issued. Accordingly, the impugned directions contained in para 5 of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 are hereby set aside." The three other respondents were: Daniel Quilan, Vanamondle and Wikiholic.
The appeal was directed against the order dated October 16, 2024 passed by Delhi High Court's Division Bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela.
The order of the High Court reads: "On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No. l had drawn this Court's attention to a page published on the website 'Wikipedia 'wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS)524/2024 was adversely commented upon. It was stated in the said publication that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to release the identities of the editors who made the edits amounted to 'censorship and a threat to the flow of information’. This Court is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comment on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to interference in Court proceedings, and that too, on a website managed by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. who is a defendant in the suit. The sub judice principle, prima facie, seems to have been 'violated with impunity' by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. - the appellant herein. This Court is also informed by the learned counsel for respondent No. l that after the last hearing, the observations made by this Bench have been 'opened up for discussion' on Wikimedia Foundation Inc. website which, according to us, complicates and compounds the issue at hand....5. Since this Court is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comments on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the discussion on the observations made by this Bench amount to interference in court proceedings and violation of the sub judice principle by a party to the proceeding and borders on contempt, this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.- the appellant herein to take down/delete the said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours...."
When the related special leave petition was moved on 17.03.2025, Supreme Court while issuing notice to ANI Media Private Limited observed:"We are concerned with the legality and validity of the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned order."
Supreme Court did not address the merit of the case between the parties. It was primarily concerned with the legality and propriety of the direction of the High Court to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the High Court. That is the width and scope of this appeal.
ANI has instituted a suit before the High Court against Wikimedia Foundation, the appellant and others praying for an order against the defendants, restraining them from posting, publishing, uploading, writing, speaking, distributing and/ or republishing any false, misleading and defamatory content against the plaintiff on any platform, including the platform maintained by defendant No. 1 and also pass an injunction against the defendant No. 1 or its agents or any person acting on its behalf or under its authority, directing it to remove all false, misleading and defamatory content against the plaintiff available on its platform, which can tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff and further restrain its users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the plaintiff on its platform.
The order dated August 20, 2024 passed by Justice Navin Chawla, a Single Judge of the High Court reads: "The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are claimed to be the ‘Administrators' of defendant No. l. Learned senior counsel for defendant No. l submits that they have no connection with defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Keeping in view the above submissions, defendant No. l is directed to disclose the subscriber details of defendant Nos.2 to 4 to the plaintiff, through its counsel, within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the said information, the plaintiff shall take steps for ensuring service of summons and notice on the application on the said defendants."
The respondent had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Order X Rule 2 and Order XI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the suit seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant for alleged willful disobedience to the order dated August 20, 2024.
The Supreme Court has recorded that on September 17, 2024, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express (E-edition) titled why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information. It was also hosted on the platform of the appellant. The article mentioned that while issuing contempt notice, the Single Judge had reportedly said: If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India: we will ask the Government to block your site. It implied that there was a failure to understand the nature of the medium i.e. Wikipedia, it was claimed that the court’s decision to hold some members accountable and punish a community of volunteers by disclosing their private information was a challenge to freedom of speech and information. The effect this would produce is that any form of critical information that a powerful organization does not like can be censored or become grounds for punishment which would set a wrong precedent.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated August 20, 2024, before the Division Bench of the High Court under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the said Code for setting aside of the order.
When the matter came before the Division Bench on October 14, 2024, the respondent complained that publishing of such a page on the platform of the appellant was intended to pressurize the Single Judge. When appellant sought for time to seek instructions the court directed the matter to be listed for hearing on October 16, 2024. On October 14, 2024, a talk page was hosted on the appellant’s platform opening up discussions on the ongoing proceedings between the parties before the High Court. On October 16, 2024, the impugned order was passed which referred to the discussion page. It is apparent that the Division Bench was palpably in error in holding that a prima facie case of interference in court proceeding, violation of the sub judice principle by a party to the proceeding and bordering on contempt was made out. The High Court failed to consider that appellant is merely an intermediary having the limited role of providing technical infrastructure to host the platform and does not edit, update, maintain or monitor the contents on the platform. This was applicable to the talk page as well as to the video. The appellant, not being the author, cannot be said to have violated the sub judice principle merely because the two pages were hosted on its platform. In any case, what were being hosted were secondary source material.
A decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603 provides for an order for postponement of publication in the event of violation of the subjudice principle but for determining such violation, the Constitution Bench set out the following criteria:
1. There is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice;
2. Reasonable alternative methods will not prevent the risk to fairness of the trial.
The High Court's Division Bench order did not discuss as to how the pages hosted on the platform to the appellant constitute a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the pending proceedings before the Single Judge. The impugned order seemed devoid of any reason. The direction to take down he said pages seemed to be an unreasoned, unwarranted one and in violation of the right to open justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It impinges upon the freedom of speech and expression, a guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a).The view taken by the Division Bench that the contents of the pages hosted on the appellant’s platform borders on contempt seemed wholly unjustified. It failed to consider that the pages were derived from other published secondary sources. Those were publicly available. The passing of orders like the impugned order adversely affected right to free speech and the right to know. It impinged upon the right to freely access and use the medium of internet. The impugned order was unsustainable and was liable to be set aside.
In the penultimate paragraph of the judgement, the Supreme Court observed:"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....Though the contention of the appellant is that it is an intermediary in terms of Section 2(1)(w) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 providing only technical infrastructure that host the platform and does not (a) publish, add or remove content on the platform, (b) decide which users are vested with certain technical privileges or (c) continually judge and censor the content posted on the platform, thereby not liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it, we are not inclined to examine this aspect of the matter since it may have a bearing on the proceedings of the pending suit.
Also read: Wikipedia vs. ANI case reaches Supreme Court
Delhi High Court seized with ANI's case against Wikimedia Foundation's Wikipedia
No comments:
Post a Comment