With respect to recent developments, critically analyze the role of Judiciary in safeguarding the right to freedom of speech and expression in this era of social media.
The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Delhi High Court order that directed the Wikimedia Foundation to take down content hosted on Wikipedia. This decision reasserts the boundaries of judicial intervention in matters of speech.
Conflict between right to freedom of speech and expression and defamation issues, especially in the Media domain:
- The genesis of the litigation was a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikipedia, following the publication of an entry on the platform that linked the news agency to misleading reporting and alleged political bias.
- The Delhi High Court directed Wikimedia to delete the relevant pages within 36 hours. It viewed the content as a prima facie violation of the sub judice principle and amounting to interference in the administration of justice.
- The Supreme Court made it clear that it was not concerned with the underlying merits of the defamation suit or Wikipedia’s editorial practices. Instead, it focused on the legality and propriety of a judicial order requiring content takedown.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of freedom of expression, judicial restraint, and the principle that courts must not act as overseers of media discourse.
- The Court held that content removal orders must satisfy the twin tests of necessity and proportionality principles drawn from its well-established jurisprudence.
- Citing its Constitution Bench ruling in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd v SEBI (2012), the SC reiterated that only where there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of trial or to the proper administration of justice can any form of restriction be contemplated.
- Mere displeasure at criticism, or the fact that judicial proceedings are under public scrutiny, does not qualify.
- In the Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra (1966) case, the Court emphasised that courts, being public and open institutions, must remain open to public observation, debate, and criticism even when a matter is sub judice.
- The Court reminded itself, and by extension all constitutional actors, that robust public debate, including criticism of court proceedings, is not an aberration but a democratic necessity.
Guidelines by the Supreme court in this regard:
- The Court emphasised that such any content removal orders, if at all issued, must adhere to the constitutional discipline of being necessary and proportionate, thus placing the burden of proof on the Judiciary itself without any blanket powers.
- In constitutional terms, this means that for a court to justify any content restriction, it must first establish that the content in question clearly violates one of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such as public order, defamation, or contempt of court.
- The harm alleged must be serious and imminent, and not addressable through less restrictive means.
- Upheld the Bloomberg Television v Zee Entertainment (2024) case, where it reiterated the classic three-fold test for granting interim injunctions: A prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
- Strict adherence to the past jurisprudence as in the Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd v Indian Express Newspapers (1988) case, where it held that a preventive injunction against the press can only be granted when there is a present and imminent danger to the administration of justice.
- While the Court declined to rule on the intermediary status of Wikipedia in this case, given the pending suit, it implicitly recognised that platforms cannot be held directly responsible for all user-generated content unless there is active involvement.
The Wikipedia v ANI decision is not merely a win for one online platform, it draws a line in the sand. The Supreme Court has reminded lower courts and litigants alike that judicial power must be exercised with restraint, especially in matters concerning speech.