SC Emphasises Right to Debate Sub Judice Matters; Courts Must Stay Open to Public Scrutiny

In a significant affirmation of democratic values, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday underscored the necessity of public debate and media oversight in judicial matters, even those pending before courts. The bench, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that courts, being public institutions, must remain open to scrutiny, commentary, and constructive criticism from citizens and the press.

The Court specifically noted that important issues deserve to be actively and widely discussed, regardless of whether they are under judicial consideration. "Every important issue should be robustly debated by the public and media, even if it is currently sub judice," the bench stated.

The observations came in a judgment quashing a Delhi High Court order which had flagged a Wikipedia article related to ANI's defamation case against the platform as "prima facie contemptuous." The High Court had even directed the removal of the content, referencing alleged comments from the judge suggesting that Wikipedia risked being banned in India for failing to take down defamatory statements about the news agency.

Challenging that order, the Wikimedia Foundation approached the apex court. In its verdict, the Supreme Court highlighted that the judiciary and the media serve as crucial pillars of India's democratic framework. “A thriving liberal democracy requires both institutions to complement one another,” the Court remarked.

Justice Bhuyan, who authored the judgment, further emphasised that courts should welcome healthy debate and constructive criticism as a means of introspection and institutional improvement. However, the judgment also cautioned that while criticism is valid and even necessary, it must not cross into contemptuous territory that scandalises the judiciary or individual judges.

“Judges cannot respond to every criticism, but if a comment amounts to contempt—by discrediting the court or its judges—legal action may be warranted, as per principles earlier laid out by Justice Krishna Iyer. Nonetheless, it is not the court’s job to police media content by ordering take-downs or deletions,” the bench explained.

This decision reinforces the Court’s broader view on the role of public discourse in judicial matters. It echoes previous debates, such as in the context of the farmers' protests, where the apex court had also deliberated whether demonstrations can proceed on issues still pending before it.

Case Name: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited

Case no.: SLP(C) No. 7748/2025 Diary No. 2483 / 2025