Image used for representative purpose only.
| Photo Credit: AP
The Supreme Court, in a judgment, on Friday (May 9, 2025) held that it is not the duty of courts to instruct the media to delete or take down content.
The verdict by a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan came in a challenge to a Delhi High Court order directing the takedown or deletion of online content related to a defamation case between news agency, Asian News International, and Wikimedia Foundation and comments allegedly made by the Single Judge of the High Court hearing the dispute.
A Division Bench of the High Court had given Wikimedia 36 hours to take down the online pages hosted on its platform. The Division Bench order of October 16 last year prima facie decided that the content bordered on contempt and amounted to interference in court proceedings and violation of the sub-judice principle by a party to the defamation proceedings.
The apex court judgment, authored by Justice Bhuyan, found the direction to take down the content “disproportionate”.
“We have no hesitation in our mind that such directions could not have been issued,” Justice Bhuyan concluded, setting aside the takedown order.
Justice Bhuyan said courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression.
“It is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down… 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,” Justice Bhuyan observed.
On ANI’s defamation suit against Wikipedia | Explained
The judgment said introspection and robust debate were essential for the improvement of institutions, including the judiciary.
“Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism,” Justice Bhuyan wrote.
Media can vigorously debate on sub judice or ongoing proceedings. However, criticism must be objective and constructive. The apex court reminded that judges have no means to respond publicly to personal criticism. A case of contempt would be made out if a publication scandalised the court or its judges.
The judgment said a court could opt for an order of preventive injunction against the Press only if there was reasonable ground to believe that publication would impair the administration of justice or the right to fair trial. The danger apprehended should be imminent and real.
People at large have a right to know. The court must not obstruct this basic right of the people in a free country. Injunction on publishing matters relating to cases which are sub judice must be ordered only if it interfered with the due course of justice, Justice Bhuyan noted.
Similarly, courts can order the postponement of an article only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings. The court must keep in mind the important public role of the media in a democracy and subject a postponement order to the twin tests of necessity and proportionality. A postponement order should operate only for a limited period and without disturbing the content of the publication. The media has a right to challenge a postponement order in a higher court.
A ‘postponement order’ is not a punitive measure. It is a balancing measure… A postponement order is a neutralising device evolved by the courts to balance interests of equal weightage, that is, freedom of expression vis-a-vis freedom of trial,” Justice Bhuyan explained.
Published – May 09, 2025 09:20 pm IST