Why in the News?
On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India canceled the Delhi High Court’s order that had asked the Wikimedia Foundation to remove a page from its Wikipedia website. This decision is important for several reasons.
What was the Supreme Court’s reason for overturning the High Court’s order on Wikipedia?
- Protection of Free Speech and Public Debate: The Supreme Court emphasized that important legal and public issues must be open to public discussion, even if they are under judicial consideration (sub judice). Eg: Wikipedia users commenting critically on a judge’s order were exercising free speech, not committing contempt — the Court said the High Court “overreacted” by viewing it as contempt.
- Right to Know is a Fundamental Right: The Court reaffirmed that the right to know is part of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Eg: Wikipedia entries serve public interest by disseminating information — taking down pages affects people’s access to knowledge.
- Wikimedia is a Neutral Intermediary: The Foundation does not create or control content but provides the platform, which is maintained by users under community guidelines.Eg: Since Wikimedia only hosts content and does not produce it, the responsibility lies with users — the High Court erred by targeting the platform instead of applying proper intermediary liability norms under the IT Act.
Why is the right to know protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?
- Linked to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): Freedom of speech includes both the right to express and the right to receive information. Without access to information, freedom of expression is incomplete. Eg: Journalists rely on access to court documents, government records, or public statements to report news and foster transparency.
- Essential for a Life with Dignity (Article 21): The right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which requires access to truthful and relevant information that affects one’s wellbeing and rights. Eg: A patient has the right to know about the risks of a medical procedure; a citizen has the right to know about environmental hazards in their locality.
How does Wikimedia qualify as an intermediary under IT law?
- Provides Platform Without Editing User Content: Wikimedia only offers the technical infrastructure for Wikipedia — it does not create or edit the content published by users. Eg: If a Wikipedia page contains inaccurate information, it is user-generated. Wikimedia itself does not write or verify the content.
- Acts Within Safe Harbour Protections (Section 79, IT Act): As an intermediary, Wikimedia is protected from liability for third-party content as long as it doesn’t initiate or modify the transmission and follows due diligence. Eg: If defamatory content appears on Wikipedia, Wikimedia is not legally responsible unless it fails to act on legitimate removal requests.
- Operates Under Community Guidelines, Not Control: Wikipedia’s content is governed by community-led guidelines and editors, not by Wikimedia itself. This decentralized structure supports its status as a neutral intermediary. Eg: Disputes over article edits are resolved through user discussion forums, not by Wikimedia’s direct intervention.
Where did the High Court overstep in interpreting adverse comments as contempt?
- Misconstrued Online Criticism as Judicial Contempt: The High Court treated user discussions and critical comments on Wikipedia as contempt of court, despite them being expressions of public opinion. Eg: A user forum questioning the logic of the High Court’s interim order was taken as contempt, even though it reflected public debate — a protected form of speech.
- Failed to Recognize the Role of Open Debate in Democracy: By ordering content removal based on adverse comments, the Court ignored the constitutional protection of open criticism, especially on matters of public interest. Eg: The take-down order was based on perceived insult to the judiciary, but the Supreme Court clarified that public discussion, even when a case is sub judice, is vital to democratic accountability.
When should courts uphold free speech in online platform cases?
- When Public Debate Involves Matters of Legal or Democratic Importance: Courts should protect speech that contributes to informed public discourse, even if the topic is sub judice, as long as it doesn’t obstruct justice. Eg: In the Wikipedia case, users debated a High Court order — the Supreme Court ruled this was legitimate discussion, not contempt.
- When the Platform Functions as a Neutral Intermediary: If an online platform merely provides infrastructure without controlling content, courts should focus on protecting users’ freedom of expression rather than penalizing the platform. Eg: Wikimedia does not write or edit articles but hosts user content — thus, courts should defend user rights unless unlawful content is proven.
Way forward:
- Strengthen Intermediary Guidelines: Clearer regulations are needed to distinguish between platforms acting as neutral hosts and those responsible for content, ensuring they are not unduly penalized for user-generated content.
- Promote Balanced Public Discourse: Courts should encourage open debate on matters of public interest, ensuring that free speech is upheld while preventing actions that could obstruct justice or harm reputations.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of a child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Linkage: Article 21, one of the fundamental rights the Supreme Court linked to the “right to know” in the Wikimedia case. It discusses the expanding scope of rights under Article 21, similar to how the right to know is being interpreted.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
