In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has underscored that courts are not tasked with issuing takedown directives to media platforms unless absolutely necessary. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, stated that robust public discourse — even on ongoing legal matters — is vital for the progress of any democratic institution, including the judiciary.
The Court emphasized that the media and the judiciary are foundational pillars of a liberal democracy and must work in a complementary manner. It reaffirmed that sub-judice matters can be debated publicly, as long as such discourse doesn’t obstruct the administration of justice.
Referencing the landmark Naresh Mirajkar judgment, the bench reiterated that open court proceedings foster transparency and public trust. “Courts must remain open to public criticism and scrutiny,” Justice Bhuyan remarked, while also noting that any serious attempt to scandalize the judiciary may attract contempt action.
On the issue of postponement orders, the Court clarified that such restrictions on reporting must meet the dual standards of necessity and proportionality, and are to be employed only to prevent a real and substantial risk to fair trial rights. Moreover, media organizations retain the right to legally challenge any such order.
These observations came while the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court directive that had ordered Wikimedia Foundation to remove a Wikipedia page documenting the defamation case filed by Asian News International (ANI) against it.
