Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), 21 – Respondent had initiated a suit against the appellant wherein the Single Judge of the High Court passed an order dated 20.08.2024 – Later, 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 in the platform of the appellant – Appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the order dated 20.08.2024 – Pending said appeal, a video was posted about the case – A talk page was hosted on appellant’s platform opening up discussions on the ongoing proceedings before the High Court – Thereafter, Division Bench of the High Court issued directions against the appellant to take down/delete the said pages and discussions as it amounts to interference in court proceedings, violation of sub judice principle by a party to proceedings and borders on contempt – Legality thereof: Held: The judicial attitude to the sub judice principle or interference in court proceedings or contempt of court have been clearly spelt out by this Court – Words of this Court expressed through the nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar : 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 in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice – 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 sub judice 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 – The above position has become more nuanced in the digital age – Nonetheless, the Division Bench had reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions – Impugned directions are set aside. [Paras 30-33] Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), 21 – Freedom of speech and expression vis-à-vis sub judice principle or interference in court proceedings or contempt of court – Discussed. [Paras 22-31]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.