This analyses examines Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd [2025 INSC 656], a significant 2025 Supreme Court decision on free speech, prior restraint, and contempt of court. The case arose from a defamation suit involving Wikipedia content and an interim takedown order by the Delhi High Court. At issue were fundamental constitutional questions under Article 19(1) (a) and 19(2) concerning media freedom and judicial sensitivity and right to access to justice under Article 21. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the takedown order, emphasizing proportionality, open justice, and judicial restraint.
1. Facts
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in an appeal connected to a civil defamation suit. The original suit, CS (OS) No. 524/2024, was filed by ANI Media Private Limited (plaintiff/respondent) against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (appellant) and others. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief to restrain the publication of allegedly false and defamatory content on Wikipedia, a platform maintained by the appellant Wikipedia, and also sought the removal of existing content.
The chain of events leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention began on August 20, 2024, when a single judge of the High Court, hearing the defamation suit, passed an interim order. This order directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details and IP addresses of certain platform administrators (editors) identified as defendants in the suit. This directive, which aimed to unmask pseudonymous online contributors, became a point of public discussion.
Following this order, on September 17, 2024, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express newspaper and subsequently hosted on a Wikimedia platform. The article, titled “why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information,” was critical of the court’s directive to disclose editor details. It argued that such an order could chill free expression and set a dangerous precedent. On October 10, 2024, the news agency Medianama published a video that further analysed the case, discussing its potential implications for safe harbour protections for intermediaries in India.
Wikimedia appealed the single Judge’s disclosure order. During the appellate hearing before a Division Bench on October 14, 2024, counsel for ANI brought these publications to the court’s attention, arguing they were intended to “pressurise the learned Single Judge.” The situation was further compounded on the same day by the creation of a “talk page” on Wikimedia’s platform, a standard feature for discussing edits, which in this instance was used for public discussion of the ongoing court proceedings.
Two days later, on October 16, 2024, the Division Bench passed the impugned order. The Bench formed a prima facie view that the commentary constituted “interference in Court proceedings” and that the principle of sub-judice had been “violated with impunity.” The Bench noted that its own observations from the previous hearing had been “‘opened up for discussion’ on Wikimedia Foundation Inc. website which, according to us, complicates and compounds the issue at hand.” Concluding that the content “borders on contempt,” the Division Bench issued a direct and non-appealable directive ordering Wikimedia to “take down/delete the said pages and discussion” within 36 hours. It was this takedown order that the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.
2. Issues
The primary legal and constitutional issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the High Court’s interim order directing the takedown of online content constituted a legally valid prior restraint on speech, consistent with the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the legal principles governing matters that are sub-judice and the law of contempt of court when issuing a mandatory takedown directive.
- Whether the High Court’s order was a proportionate response to the perceived interference with the administration of justice.
3. Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court dated October 16, 2024. The Court held that the Division Bench had “reacted disproportionately” in issuing the takedown directive. It found the order to be an impermissible prior restraint on speech because it was not supported by adequate reasoning and failed to meet the established constitutional tests for such a restriction. The immediate effect of the judgment was the restoration of the online pages and discussions that had been ordered to be removed.
4. Reasoning of the Court
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of several established legal principles, which it systematically applied to the facts of the case.
- The Test for Prior Restraint: The Court’s analysis began with the appellant’s primary contention that the takedown order was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court referred to the definitive test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. SEBI.[1] In that case, the Court held that a court-ordered postponement of publication is a “neutralizing device” to be used only in rare cases. The party seeking such an order must satisfy a stringent two-part test: first, demonstrate a “real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice,” and second, show that “reasonable alternative methods will not prevent the risk.” The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be entirely devoid of this essential analysis. It contained no reasoning as to how the online commentary, which was based on publicly available information, posed a real and substantial risk to proceedings being conducted by a professional judge, who is trained and presumed to be immune to media pressure. The High Court had not articulated what specific prejudice would be caused or why less intrusive measures would be insufficient.
- The Principle of Open Justice: The Court emphasized that open justice is a foundational constitutional value, not merely a procedural formality. It drew upon the nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which had observed that a “public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice.”[2] The Court powerfully reiterated this by stating that a “trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public.” This principle was further reinforced by citing Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which laid down clear guidelines to regulate the live streaming and enabled people’s right to access justice under Article 21.[3] The Court framed public scrutiny not as a threat, but as an essential safeguard for the institution itself, quoting Jeremy Bentham’s observation that publicity “keeps the Judge himself, while trying, under trial.”
- The Law on Contempt of Court: The Court examined the narrow contours of criminal contempt and prescribed the appropriate judicial temperament when faced with criticism. This was a direct response to the High Court’s prima facie finding that the content “borders on contempt.” The Court drew heavily upon the jurisprudential wisdom of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s celebrated opinion in In Re S. Mulgaokar, which advised a “wise economy of use” of the contempt power and cautioned judges against being “hypersensitive.”[4] Justice Iyer’s opinion stressed that judges should “deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude.” The Supreme Court also referred to Lord Denning’s approach, quoting him as saying, “We will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity… We do not fear… criticism, nor do we resent it.” By invoking these authorities, the Supreme Court indicated that the High Court’s reaction was not in line with the recommended standard of judicial fortitude and restraint.
In summary, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was disproportionate because it failed to apply the correct legal test for prior restraint and was inconsistent with the principles of open justice and judicial restraint in contempt matters. The Court also made the general observation that “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down,” signalling a clear disapproval of judicial censorship.
5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wikimedia v. ANI clarifies and reinforces the high constitutional threshold required for issuing takedown orders or other forms of prior restraint against publications concerning sub-judice matters. The decision serves as a significant precedent, reaffirming that any such restriction on speech must be rigorously justified by demonstrating a “real and substantial risk” of prejudice to the administration of justice, a test that will be difficult to meet in cases involving professional judges.
The ruling underscores the constitutional importance of open justice, framing public discussion of court proceedings not as an obstacle but as a vital component of judicial accountability. It also provides important normative guidance for the judiciary, encouraging an institutional culture of resilience and restraint in the face of public criticism. For media organizations, journalists, legal commentators, and digital platforms, the decision provides a strong precedent to resist takedown orders that are not supported by a detailed, reasoned, and constitutionally compliant analysis.
(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)
[1] CURATIVE PETITION (C) NO.85 OF 2013 in REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.2332 OF 2012 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.9813 OF 2011
[2] AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1
[3] AIR 2019 SC (CIV) 194
[4] 1978 AIR 727
Related:
Recalibrating Free Speech: The Supreme Court’s constitutional turn in the digital age
Mixed Messaging: Free speech jurisprudence from the Supreme Court
India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025