Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Wikimedia's Plea Against Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI's Defamation Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 9) reserved judgment on a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation against the High Court's take down order for the page titled “Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation”.

"Prima facie what we feel is, we are not saying that Court is powerless to direct that some content should be removed. But there has to be first a prima facie finding recorded with reasons that what is published in contemptuous. So condition precedent is a prima facie finding giving reasons why it amounts to contempt", Justice Abhay Oka observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the plea.

The High Court took exception to comments on the page, particularly a statement that a judge had threatened to order the shutdown of Wikipedia in India. On the last date, Justice Oka questioned how the High Court could have passed the order without contempt being proved.

Last month, while issuing notice, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the High Court's observation that the content amounted to interference with ongoing court proceedings, and the direction to remove material simply because it criticized the High Court.

During the hearing today, the bench examined the contents of the Wikipedia page. Justice Oka raised concerns about the language used in one statement, particularly the use of the word “threatened” in relation to a judge's remark in the defamation case.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Wikimedia submitted that it was an oral remark reported by Live Law and many other media. He said that the Wikipedia page had cited an Indian Express article about the said remark of the High Court. He also informed the Court that the Indian Express article in question was authored by a visiting professor at Harvard University. Sibal said the content was not created by Wikimedia, but by users, and the page itself included a footnote citing the Indian Express article.

Sibal further argued, "You can't say there should be no discussion (on court proceedings). We have an open justice system; this has a chilling effect. In Sahara case, it is held such orders can't be passed."

Justice Oka agreed, "Mr. Sibal, we agree with you. Suppose somebody publishes a new item about me or my brother, that we threatened someone in court, we will not get be bothered by it. The only thing is judge can't answer if somebody puts words in judge's mouth. Every day we hear that we are insensitive etc. Why should we be bothered? But we can't say for someone else."

He further said, "Suppose somebody says something about court proceeding before this court, only on the ground that we feel it objectionable, or we don't like it, we can't direct removal. Only if we come to a conclusion that this satisfies the well settled test of contempt prima facie finding, then we can do it. Only because we don't like it we can't do it."

The same bench in a recent judgment in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat has held that courts must protect freedom of speech and expression even if judges don't like the content.

Notably, in the main defamation case, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday (April 2) granted relief to ANI and ordered Wikimedia to remove allegedly defamatory content from ANI's Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International.”

The dispute originates from a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikipedia, alleging defamatory content regarding ANI's credibility and editorial policies. ANI sought damages amounting to Rs. 2 crores and the removal of the content. Wikipedia was also directed by the court to disclose the subscriber details of three individuals who had edited ANI's Wikipedia page, an order that Wikimedia contested.

Subsequently, on November 11, 2024, the Delhi High Court closed Wikimedia's appeal against the single judge's order directing disclosure of the individuals' subscriber details. This came after both parties entered into a consent order resolving the matter. The division bench allowed Wikipedia to serve summons on the individuals and permitted the single judge to proceed with ANI's defamation suit in accordance with the law.

Following the removal of the contested Wikipedia page, the High Court also closed ANI's contempt plea against Wikimedia.

Thereafter, the Single bench of the Delhi High Court issued summons to three individuals who allegedly edited ANI's Wikipedia page while dealing with the defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 7748/2025 Diary No. 2483 / 2025

Case Title – Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited