Courts Must Always Remain Open To Public Debate & Criticism; Even Subjudice Issues Can Be Debated By People & Press : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasised the importance of public discourse and media scrutiny, stating that courts, as open and public institutions, must remain receptive to observations, debates, and constructive criticism.

The Court observed that even when a matter is sub judice, it is vital for important issues to be vigorously debated by the public and the press. “Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court,” the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted.

The bench also underscored the complementary roles played by the judiciary and the media in sustaining a liberal democracy, calling both institutions “foundational pillars” of India's constitutional framework. “For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other,” the Court remarked.

The Court made these comments while setting aside the Delhi High Court's finding that the Wikipedia page about news agency ANI's defamation case against Wikipedia was "prima facie contemptuous". The High Court had directed the take-down of the page, which had reported that the judge had warned that Wikipedia would be shut down in India if they did not remove the alleged defamatory remarks made against ANI.

Challenging the High Court's order, the Wikimedia Foundation approached the Supreme Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed :

"Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. Infact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. 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.

 However, those who offer criticism should remember that Judges cannot respond to such criticism but if a publication scandalizes the court or a Judge or Judges and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down.

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."

Earlier, the farmers' protest matter, the Supreme Court had framed an issue if public protests can be permitted on an issue which is subjudice before the Court.