Supreme Court quashes Delhi HC's Wikipedia takedown order
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The court quashed
's order directing taking down of a Wikipedia page on proceedings on a
defamation case
filed against it by news agency ANI.
It said healthy criticism and scrutiny by the media in sub judice cases would keep judicial caprice or vagaries in check.
"Courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism... However, those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action.
But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down," SC said.
Referring to SC's earlier verdicts, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said public scrutiny and gaze serve as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice.
"Definitely, if a member of the public or a litigant or, for that matter, even the media tries to scandalise the court by making sweeping unfounded allegations against the court or the judge(s) or by imputing motives against the judge or judges who had passed a judicial order or had conducted the court proceedings, certainly the courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against such contemnors.
This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication as contempt of court is a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the
freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1)(a)," the court said.
"For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other," the bench said.
The court also relied on the recent verdict in the Imran Pratapgarhi case which highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of courts to uphold such freedom. "This court observed that sometimes, judges may not like spoken or written words but still it is the duty of the courts to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
Except the courts, there is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle freedom of speech," it said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Economic Times
26 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma & WB counterpart Mamata Banerjee engage in a bitter verbal volley over infiltration, identity & language
ANI Himanta Biswa Sarma (left), Mamata Banerjee Guwahati: Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and West Bengal counterpart Mamata Banerjee are engaged in a bitter verbal volley over the Bengali speaking, identity and demographic stated in X, 'The second most spoken language in the country, Bangla, is also the second most spoken language of Assam. To threaten citizens, who want to coexist peacefully respecting all languages and religions, with persecution for upholding their own mother tongue is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This divisive agenda of the BJP in Assam has crossed all limits and people of Assam will fight back. I stand with every fearless citizen who is fighting for the dignity of their language and identity, and their democratic rights.'Sarma replied, 'In Assam, we are not fighting our own people. We are fearlessly resisting the ongoing, unchecked Muslim infiltration from across the border, which has already caused an alarming demographic shift. In several districts, Hindus are now on the verge of becoming a minority in their own land. This is not a political narrative—it's a reality. Even the Supreme Court of India has termed such infiltration as external aggression. And yet, when we rise to defend our land, culture, and identity, you choose to politicize it. 'He continued, 'We do not divide people by language or religion. Assamese, Bangla, Bodo, Hindi—all languages and communities have coexisted here. But no civilisation can survive if it refuses to protect its borders and its cultural foundation. While we are acting decisively to preserve Assam's identity, you, Didi, have compromised Bengal's future—encouraging illegal encroachment by a particular community, appeasing one religious community for vote banks, and remaining silent as border infiltration eats away at national integrity—all just to stay in power. Assam will continue to fight to preserve its heritage, its dignity, and its people—with courage and constitutional clarity'.Controversy started earlier this month when Sarma said that Assamese is the state language and there cannot be blackmail to it. He said that threats by some minority organizations that they will not write Assamese as their mother tongue in the census will only quantify the number of foreigners. All Bodoland Territorial Council Minority Students Union (ABMSU) threatened to replace language in the census. He threatened to replace Assamese with Bengali following the state government's eviction drive in had said, "Language cannot be used as a tool for blackmail. In Assam, Assamese is permanent — both as the state and official language. However, if they write Bengali in electoral rolls or census, it will only quantify the number of foreigners in the state.'ABMSU leader Mainuddin Ali said that Bengali-speaking Muslims would now choose to write Bengali — not Assamese — in public declarations, claiming that Assamese would no longer remain a majority language. All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) affiliated workers' union, the Indian National Trinamool Trade Union Congress (INTTUC), staged a protest march against the National Register of Citizens(NRC) in Siliguri, condemning the alleged harassment and pushback of migrant Bengali-speaking individuals from several BJP-ruled states. Muslims comprise 34% of the 3.12 crore population of Assam, of which 4% are indigenous Assamese Muslims and the remaining are mostly Bengali- speaking Muslims.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
CPM calls for a nationwide protest against SIR in Bihar
NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) on Saturday called for a nationwide protest on August 8 against SIR. A statement by the Polit Bureau of the party alleged that the Election Commission (EC) is biased in favour of the BJP-led government and complicit with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in implementing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. 'The EC, which until now had acted in favour of the BJP-led government, has now become complicit in implementing the RSS or Sangh Parivar agenda. This (SIR) attack on democratic rights, which is sought to be extended across the country, must not be allowed. It is to be noted that even some of the alliance partners of the BJP, like the TDP, have voiced their concerns about the SIR. The CPM calls for protests to be held throughout the country on 8th August 2025 against this anti-democratic exercise of the EC,' read a statement issued by the Polit Bureau of the party on Saturday. The party further said that the Commission wants to extend this exercise to the entire country-- in the name of revising the electoral rolls-- and is appropriating the authority to verify the citizenship of voters, which is outside its constitutional remit. 'Under the baseless pretext of weeding out foreigners from the electoral rolls, they are disenfranchising vast sections of minorities and other select groups. The entire process is fraught with various violations, and even the right to vote guaranteed by the Constitution may be denied to many," the party said. "The NRC exercise, which was widely opposed by the people before the Covid pandemic, is sought to be enforced surreptitiously through the back door,' the party added.
