A Welcome Move

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order directing Wikipedia to take down a page allegedly defamatory to the Asian News International (ANI). The Court found the order excessively broad and contrary to established principles of safe harbour for online intermediaries.

Supreme Court’s Intervention and Legal Clarity:

• Quashing of Arbitrary Takedown Order – Judicial Correction: The Supreme Court struck down the Delhi HC’s takedown directive, terming it overly vague and wide-ranging, and asked ANI to re-approach the High Court with clearly specified defamatory content.
• Overreach in Interpretation – Definitional Error: The HC wrongly classified referenced articles as editorials or opinion pieces despite them being based on investigative reporting; the SC disagreed with this classification and the imposed higher responsibility on Wikipedia.
• Upholding Safe Harbour – Platform Protection: The SC indirectly reaffirmed Section 79 of the IT Act, recognizing Wikipedia as an intermediary not directly responsible for user-generated content unless specifically flagged and unaddressed.

Wikipedia’s Model and Functional Safeguards:

• Community-Driven Platform – Editorial Independence: Wikipedia’s content is curated by global volunteers, not controlled by Wikimedia Foundation, and governed by transparent editorial norms including community consensus and page protections.
• Content Moderation Mechanism – Internal Governance: Disputes are handled through measures like "extended confirmed protection" and "full protection", ensuring only experienced or elected users can edit contentious pages.
• Repository of Knowledge – Global Reach: With over 62.95 million articles in 350+ languages, Wikipedia serves as a vital source of information; suppressing it through judicial overreach risks undermining public access to diverse knowledge.

Constitutional and Free Speech Implications:

• Defamation vs Public Interest – Need for Nuance: Broad takedown based on alleged defamation may suppress content that serves public interest or critical discourse, blurring the line between misinformation and accountability journalism.
• Threat to Digital Freedom – Precedent Risk: Allowing blanket takedowns threatens the editorial freedom of open platforms and may lead to a chilling effect, deterring legitimate critique and investigative content.
• Balancing Fundamental Rights – Court’s Role: The Supreme Court’s order upholds the constitutional value of free speech and information under Article 19(1)(a), emphasizing that judicial directions must be precise and not suppress open discourse.

Practice Question

Q. Discuss the constitutional and technological implications of the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment on Wikipedia in the context of intermediary liability and freedom of expression. How does the judgment reconcile judicial oversight with digital free speech?