Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Ms. Tine Abraham, Adv. Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijnan Jha, Adv. Ms. Shivani Rawat, Adv. Mr. Aayush Marwah, Adv. Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Adv. Mr. Bakhshind Singh, Adv. Mr. Pranav Tomar, Adv. For M/S. Trilegal Advocates on Record, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Om Batra, Adv. Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

Case Details and Procedural History - The appeal was filed by special leave against an order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi (!) . - The High Court's order directed the appellant (Wikimedia Foundation Inc.) to take down/delete pages and discussions regarding observations made by the High Court within 36 hours (!) . - The Supreme Court clarified that the appeal is primarily concerned with the legality and propriety of the High Court's direction to remove content, rather than the inter se merits of the underlying suit (!) . - The underlying suit was CS(OS) No. 524/2024, where the respondent sought an injunction against the appellant for publishing false, misleading, and defamatory content (!) . - The appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) (!) .

Submissions by Parties - The appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider that it is merely an intermediary providing technical infrastructure and does not edit or monitor content (!) . - The appellant contended that the direction to take down pages was unreasoned, violated Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a), and would have a chilling effect on free speech (!) . - The respondent argued that airing adverse comments on the platform of a party to the suit amounts to interference in court proceedings (!) . - The respondent submitted that the appeal should not be entertained as the suit and contempt proceedings were pending (!) .

Legal Principles and Precedents Cited - The Court referred to Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, noting that restrictions on publication require a "real and substantial risk of prejudice" to the fairness of the trial (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that postponement orders must be subject to the twin tests of necessity and proportionality (!) . - The Court cited Swapnil Tripathi Vs. Supreme Court of India to highlight that open courts and public scrutiny act as a check against judicial caprice (!) (!) . - The Court referred to Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat, stating that it is the duty of courts to uphold fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and not to stifle freedom of speech (!) . - The Court discussed the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, distinguishing between scandalizing the court and fair criticism (!) . - The Court relied on Re S. Mulgaokar and the opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer, who emphasized that reasonable criticism of court proceedings is not objectionable and that courts should not be hypersensitive (!) . - The Court quoted Lord Denning from Regina v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex. p. Blackburn, stating that courts will not use contempt jurisdiction to suppress those who speak against them and that freedom of speech is more important than judicial dignity (!) . - The Court reiterated that while publications scandalizing the court are actionable, it is not the duty of the court to tell the media to delete content (!) .

Court's Findings and Decision - The Court found the High Court's direction to be disproportionate and lacking sufficient justification regarding the sub judice principle (!) . - The Court held that the impugned directions could not have been issued as they impinged upon fundamental rights without adequate reasoning (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the impugned directions contained in paragraph 5 of the High Court's order dated 16.10.2024 were set aside (!) . - There was no order as to costs (!) .