The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the legality of a Delhi High Court order directing the removal of a Wikipedia page and other discussions on a defamation case filed by the Asian News Agency (ANI) against the organisation.
While hearing a plea filed by the Wikimedia Foundation, a two-judge bench of the apex court comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns regarding the Delhi HC's observation that the content in the Wikipedia page amounted to interference with ongoing court proceedings.
"We are concerned with the legality and validity of the directions issued by the High Court," the bench remarked, reported Live Law.
“We can understand if there is a contempt, and contempt is proved pursuant to notice. Somebody wants to purge the contempt, so he removes that content. But to tell somebody to remove something because there is some criticism of what the Court has done, that may not be correct,” Justice Oka noted.
The court also issued a notice to the ANI, returnable on April 4.
While hearing the defamation plea filed by ANI, a division bench of the Delhi HC comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had directed the removal of a Wikipedia page titled "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.”
In its order, the Delhi HC observed that certain comments on the page, particularly a statement that a judge had threatened to order the shutdown of Wikipedia in India, prima facie amount to contempt of the court. The court also stated that the content on the page and subsequent discussions interfered with court proceedings.
Pointing out that comments and criticism of court proceedings cannot be seen as unusual, Justice Oka said, “In this Court, we say things, and somebody wants to comment upon it... this happens. Sometimes somebody says that you are sitting here with a preconceived mind or that you are not giving a hearing. People say things, and we have to tolerate it."
Slamming the Delhi HC order, he remarked, “To bring the best out of the lawyers, sometimes we say so many things in open court. Now, if the court says something orally and, on social media, somewhere there is a comment offered, why should the court be touchy about such comments...Somebody discusses something which happens in the court, will that amount to interference?"
Appearing for Wikimedia, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the Delhi HC had initiated contempt proceedings without making a finding on defamation. He also stated that the concerned content was not of Wikimedia but was taken from an Indian Express article.
Justice Oka also came down heavily on the ANI, noting that the issue is related to media freedom.
When ANI's counsel argued that the persons responsible for the statements on the Wikipedia page are not present in the court, Justice Oka said, “You are missing an important point. Ultimately, this is the media. The question is about the freedom of the media.”
The ANI had accused Wikipedia of hosting a "defamatory" description of the news agency on the ANI Wikipedia page. The description stated that ANI "has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events.”
The news agency had sought for the removal of the content and monetary damages amounting to Rs. 2 crores.