The Supreme Court emphasized the balance between the subjudice principle and the fundamental right to free speech, setting aside the High Court's order to remove comments as disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi (‘High Court’ hereinafter) in FAO (OS) No.146 of 2024 (Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Vs. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.).

2. Order dated 16.10.2024 of the Division Bench of the High Court reads as under:

1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No. l had drawn this Court's attention to a page published on the website 'Wikipedia 'wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS)524/2024 was adversely commented upon. It was stated in the said publication that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to release the identities of the editors who made the edits amounted to 'censorship and a threat to the flow of information’.

2. This Court is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comment on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to interference in Court proceedings, and that too, on a website managed by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. who is a defendant in the suit. The subjudice principle, prima facie, seems to have been 'violated with impunity' by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. - the appellant herein.

3. This Court is also informed by the learned counsel for respondent No. l that after the last hearing, the observations made by this Bench have been 'opened up for discussion' on Wikimedia Foundation Inc. website which, according to us, complicates and compounds the issue at hand.

4. At this stage, Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, on instructions, states that neither the pages wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge have been commented upon nor the pages on which the discussion qua the observations made by the Division Bench have been created by the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. He further states that, in the event this Court were to direct to take down of the offending pages and discussions, the said order would be complied with.

5. Since this Court is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comments on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the discussion on the observations made by this Bench amount to interference in court proceedings and violation of the subjudice principle by a party to the proceeding and borders on contempt, this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.- the appellant herein to take down/delete the said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours. List on 21st October, 2024.

3. When the related special leave petition was moved on 17.03.2025, this Court while issuing notice to the first respondent (ANI Media Private Limited) observed as follows:

We are concerned with the legality and validity of the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned order.

4. Therefore, in this appeal we are not concerned with the inter se merit of the case between the parties. We are primarily concerned with the legality and propriety of the direction of the High Court to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the High Court. That is the width and scope of this appeal.

5. However to put the matter in proper perspective, background facts may be briefly noted.

6. Respondent has instituted a suit before the High Court against the appellant and others being CS (OS) No. 524/2024 (appellant is defendant No. 1 in the suit). Following are the reliefs claimed in the suit:

In view of the above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Pass an order against the defendants, restraining them from posting, publishing, uploading, writing, speaking, distributing and/ or republishing any false, misleading and defamatory content against the plaintiff on any platform, including the platform maintained by defendant No. 1;

b. Pass an injunction against the defendant No. 1 or its agents or any person acting on its beh