The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on May 9, 2025, reversing a previous Delhi High Court order that mandated the Wikimedia Foundation to remove a specific Wikipedia page. This case emerged from a defamation issue where users created a page discussing the case and criticized a single judge’s prior ruling, which the High Court deemed contemptuous.

Key developments in the ruling include:

• In October 2024, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order based on the creation of a new Wikipedia page that detailed a defamation case involving adverse comments about the judge's decision.
• Initially, a single judge enforced this order, which was later upheld by a Division Bench, prompting the Wikimedia Foundation to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that public debate on significant issues, even those sub judice, is essential and noted that the High Court's actions appeared to be an overreaction to users’ comments.
• The ruling underscored that the right to know is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing its importance in fostering public discourse and participation in justice.
• The judges acknowledged the need to balance freedom of expression and the right to know against potential judicial contempt, suggesting that the High Court may reassess Wikimedia’s role as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's role is primarily technical; it provides the infrastructure for users to contribute to Wikipedia while adhering to specific guidelines, thus safeguarding user contributions and promoting the right to know.
• The Court reiterated the classic sentiment that transparency in courtroom proceedings upholds judicial accountability, citing former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud who highlighted the value of publicity in legal matters.

This ruling is noteworthy as it highlights the significance of freedom of expression and the right to information in the context of online platforms and judicial oversight, while initially setting aside any directive that might inhibit public discourse regarding ongoing legal matters.

Important Sentences:

• The Supreme Court of India reversed a Delhi High Court order to remove a Wikipedia page related to a defamation case.
• The case arose after users criticized a judge’s earlier ruling, leading to allegations of contempt.
• Justices Oka and Bhuyan remarked that public debate on important issues should not be stifled even if they are before the court.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to know is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
• The ruling may influence how the Delhi High Court views Wikimedia's status as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act.
• The Wikimedia Foundation’s role protects user contributions and promotes the right to know.
• The judges stressed that transparency in legal proceedings ensures judicial accountability.

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on May 9, 2025, overturning a Delhi High Court decision mandating the Wikimedia Foundation to remove a specific Wikipedia page that garnered controversy. This case revolves around freedom of expression and the public's right to know, particularly in the context of judicial proceedings.

Key Points from the Article:

• On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India overturned a Delhi High Court order requiring the Wikimedia Foundation to take down a Wikipedia page.
• The initial order by the Delhi High Court stemmed from a defamation case where Wikipedia users had created a page discussing the case and making derogatory comments about the judge’s previous order.
• The High Court's order was upheld by a Division Bench before the Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court.
• Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that vital issues must be debated publicly, even if they are ongoing in court, indicating that the High Court overreacted to the adverse comments seen in the forum.
• The Supreme Court's ruling focused on the legality of the take-down order while also discussing the importance of the right to know, protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Justices viewed the right to know as essential for participatory democracy and ensuring access to justice.
• The Foundation's role is described as providing the technical platform for users to create and share information, thus serving the public's right to knowledge and expression without creating original content itself.
• The Court noted the democratic framework of Wikipedia, which protects users from retaliation and encourages participation by ensuring their contributions remain anonymous.
• The ruling aligns with a larger theme in Indian jurisprudence wherein freedom of expression is emphasized, suggesting that judicial proceedings benefit from public scrutiny.
• Citing D.Y. Chandrachud, the Justices reiterated that transparency in court proceedings is fundamental for judicial accountability.

Overall, this ruling by the Supreme Court not only reaffirms the principles of free speech and public knowledge but also highlights the challenges and responsibilities of digital platforms in balancing content moderation with user rights. The emphasis on the right to know as a fundamental aspect of democracy places significant implications on current and future cases involving the internet and judicial processes.

The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has initiated a reconsideration of the safe harbour provisions for social media platforms as a measure to address the proliferation of "fake news." Safe harbour is a legal protection for websites, allowing them to avoid liability for illegal or harmful content posted by third-party users unless they have actual knowledge of such content and fail to act promptly.

Key Points:

• Safe Harbour Concept: A legal provision designed to protect intermediaries (like social media platforms) from liability over user-generated content, promoting innovation without undue legal pressure.
• Legislative Background: In the U.S., safe harbour is embedded in Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, while in India, it operates under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Conditions of Protection: Indian safe harbour protections are conditional; intermediaries must remove illegal content promptly after receiving actual knowledge, defined by court orders or government notifications.
• Intermediary Guidelines: The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 imposed further compliance requirements on social media platforms, which include appointing in-house grievance officers and regularly reporting on complaints.
• Recent Amendments: In 2023, amendments aimed to revoke safe harbour protection if content is flagged as "fake news" by the Press Information Bureau's fact-checking unit. This change faced legal challenges from petitioners, including comedian Kunal Kamra, who argued against the government's authority in designating content truthfulness.
• Court Rulings: The Bombay High Court supported the petitioner, and the case is currently under government appeal; the case emphasizes concerns over governmental overreach and the independent operation of social media platforms.
• Government's Stance: The government asserts that foreign platforms do not comply with Indian laws sufficiently and react slowly to takedown demands. It has engaged in public disputes with social media companies over regulatory compliance, particularly affecting platforms like X (formerly Twitter).
• Future Amendments: The Union government proposes to amend safe harbour clauses to compel platforms to take proactive measures against misinformation, AI-generated content, and cyber fraud.
• International Context: The debate mirrors U.S. discussions on Section 230 - while President Biden seeks to tighten accountability on extreme content, President Trump advocates for more lenient stances against perceived censorship of conservative voices.
• Digital India Act Proposal: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology plans to draft a Digital India Act to encapsulate these potential changes, though details about how safe harbour will specifically change under this act have not been disclosed.

This evolving scenario reflects the delicate balance that needs to be struck between encouraging free expression on social media platforms and combating harmful content in the digital age.

The article discusses a significant action taken by the Indian government to withhold over 8,000 accounts on the X platform (formerly Twitter), primarily affecting Pakistani users. The move is part of a broader effort to curb disinformation related to a governmental operation referred to as "Operation Sindoor." Here are the key points summarized from the article:

• Account Withholding: Over 8,000 accounts, mostly of Pakistani origins, have been withheld in India by the X platform. This action was implemented following orders from the Indian government.

• Affected Accounts: Numerous Indian accounts, including well-known journalists and news portals such as Maktoob News and The Wire, have also been targeted. The Wire has announced plans to challenge the blocking order.

• Government's Stance: The Indian government is targeting social media and video-sharing platforms like Instagram and YouTube to stamp out disinformation regarding Operation Sindoor and its aftermath. There has been a specific focus on blocking Pakistani government handles.

• X’s Response: X expressed disagreement with the government’s orders but indicated it was unable to legally challenge them. The account from which X communicated this stance was subsequently withheld soon after the announcement.

• Censorship Concerns: X criticized the government's actions as unnecessary censorship that undermines free speech, noting a lack of evidence or justification provided for blocking numerous accounts.

• Broader Impact: The measures taken have also affected various Kashmiri news organizations, with accounts like The Kashmiriyat and Free Press Kashmir being among those withheld.

• Blocking Notifications: The withholding of accounts is not immediate across all networks and varies between telecom operators and internet service providers, leading to a delayed realization of the block by users.

• Official Communication: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not provide immediate comments on the situation or on the blocking of The Wire.

• Calls for Action: The Wire has condemned the censorship as an arbitrary and inexplicable move, advocating for the maintenance of fair and rational voices in the media landscape at a crucial time for India.

Overall, these actions illustrate the tension between government efforts to regulate online content and the implications for free speech and press freedoms, raising concerns about censorship, especially concerning critical and factual news sources.

Important Sentences:

• Over 8,000 accounts, primarily Pakistani, have been withheld in India by the X platform following government orders.
• Notable Indian accounts, including those of journalists and specific news portals, have also been blocked.
• The Indian government’s actions aim to combat disinformation related to Operation Sindoor.
• X disagreed with the government’s orders but could not legally challenge them.
• Calls for censorship and the undermining of free speech have been articulated by X.
• The withholding of accounts affects various news organizations, particularly in Kashmir.
• The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology did not comment immediately on the actions taken.
• The Wire condemned the censorship, calling it arbitrary and detrimental to rational voices in the media.

Summary:

Kolanukonda Shivaji, vice-president of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC), has criticized the Andhra Pradesh State Cabinet for not including the demand for Special Category Status (SCS) while passing a resolution to declare Amaravati as the permanent capital of the state. He argued that the Cabinet missed an opportunity to amend the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, to advocate for SCS, which would be beneficial for the state's development. Shivaji referred to historical criticisms faced by the Congress regarding the drafting of the Reorganisation Act and urged Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to take action while they have the chance to amend it appropriately. Additionally, he pointed out the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate into a liquor scam that occurred during the Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy-led YSR Congress Party government, asserting that Reddy must provide clarity to the public regarding the allegations which involve significant public funds.

Important Sentences:

• Kolanukonda Shivaji criticized the State Cabinet for not demanding Special Category Status during their resolution to declare Amaravati the permanent capital.
• He questioned why the government did not include SCS when they had the chance to amend the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
• Shivaji urged Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to address the criticisms regarding the drafting of the Reorganisation Act.
• He highlighted the ongoing Enforcement Directorate investigation into a multi-crore liquor scam involving high-ranking officials during the YSRCP government.
• Shivaji demanded that Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy provide explanations to the public about the liquor scam that involves public money.