On May 9, The Supreme Court handed down an important judgment in a long-running litigation between Asian News International (Ani) And Wikipedia (and its parent organization, the wikimedia forth. Ani Had Originally Sued Wikipedia on the Ground That The Wikipedia Page for Ani Had Certain Disparapping Remarks about its independence and impartiality. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court (HC) – which was hearing the case – Had initially passed an interim order required wikipedia to disclose its subscriber details.
To that Familiar with how an online, crowd-Sourced Encyclopaedia works, what followed should not be surprising. Considering the public importance of the case, a fresh page was created on Wikipedia Chronicling the Legal Developments, the Contents of which was debated on the website’s Talk Forum. Ani’s Lawyers Complained About This to the Division Bench of the Delhi HC, which was heing wikipedia’s appeal against the Single Judge’s Order. The division bench noted that the page’s observation that the single judge’s order amounted to “censorship and a threat to flow to flow of information” Amounted to “An Interference in Judicial Proceedings” “Contempt”. It Directed Wikipedia to take down the pages within 36 hours.
It should be obvious that the delhi HC’s numerous orders betrayed a complete lacque Community Checking (Through Wikipedia’s Talk Page) Functions. Matters were not helped by numerous intemperate oral remarks made by the bench during the hearing, such as telling wikimedia’s’s counsel that wikipedia could Leave the India Could Leave the India Court would ask the government to block the wikipedia website.
It is, therefore, clear that direction that the HC was going in presented a clear and present Danger to the freedom of speech and expression, and to the dissemination of community knowledge in India. Anyone who has used wikipedia even in their life can testfey to how, despite all its all its its flaws and imperfections, the encyclopaedia is a sterling example of a vast Community of Human Being Together Regardless of Borders and Identities and Contributing to the Global Knowledge Commons. Wikipedia is a testament to how the open internet, at its best, can work.
In the present case, the wikimedia foundation was, therefore, constrained to approach the supreme court. In a short and close reasoned judgment, a two-judge bench of the apex court, Comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, SET Aside the HC’s i interim ORDER directing the TAKE-DOWN OF DOWN OF the WKIPDDEA Pages. After surveying the Supreme Court’s Precedent on this point, which counselled judges to exercise reticence before Issuing Contempt Orders, The COURT CONCLUDED THE PULTS, AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Open Institution, Must Allays Remain Open to Public observations, debates and criticisms. This was a timely rebuke to the delhi HC, which – it would appear – could not abide even the mildest critique of its or orders. As the apex court went on to note in blunt terms, “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media” to “delete this, take that down”.
The court’s plain-speaking here is bot salutary and much needed. Even Thought Judicial Precedent is Clear That Take-Down and PostPonement Orders Should only be used as a last Resort, where there is an imminent threat to the Fair Administration of Justice, these people, these Are vague enough to allow for extramely subjective interpretation by judges across the country. Indeed, this is why this case needed to come to the supreme court in the first place: it was trust of an unconscionable interpreting of the Law by the Law by the Delhi Hc that Forced Wikimeia to the Apape Count. Clear reminders of the legal position, therefore, see to be regrettally Necessary from the highest court.
It is also important to remumber that ani’s main case against wikipedia is continuing in the delhi hc. This is a case that deserves close and continuing scrutiny. Any publicly created encyclopaedia that covers current events will, Inevitably, Annoy and Offend a Great Number of People. That is the nature of important and even-handed analysis. In such circumstans, the Indian Judiciary Should Avoid Becoming a Forum of choice for people to have critical or unflatting analysis analysis about themeselves on wikipedia be taken by a Judicial Order. This would Amount to a distorting influence upon the free exchange of ideas, which is one of the greenst constributions of the internet.
There is a reason why wikipedia’s Talk Page exists, and why wikipedia have a great number of Volunteer-moderators: it is to ensure that all the information in the information in the encyclopaedia is based on public sources and is thoroughly married. Wikipedia is not perfect in this region; Nothing is howyver, the very extent of its use reviews how successful it has been, and its value to the global quality for free and open access to information. It would be a pity if this question was irreparibly damaged in India due to Heavy-Handed Judicial Orders.
Gautam bhatia, a delhi-based advocate, is the author of offndend, shock or disturb: free speech under the Indian Constitution. The views expressed are personal
