IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

12 May 2025 : Right to know

Editorial 2: Right to know

Context

High Courts should be more attuned to safeguarding fundamental rights.

 

Introduction

The Supreme Court's recent ruling on May 9, 2025, emphasized the importance of the right to know and the freedom of expression in public discourse. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order to remove a Wikipedia page related to a defamation case, affirming that vigorous public debate, even on sub judice matters, is essential for democracy. The case highlights the need for judicial sensitivity towards fundamental rights, ensuring transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

 

Supreme Court of India's Order on May 9: Key Aspects

  • Background of the Case
    • On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Delhi High Court's order directing the Wikimedia Foundation to remove a page on Wikipedia.
    • The page detailed a defamation case and a discussion forum where some users commented adversely on the High Court's order.
    • The High Court had issued an interim order in October 2024 after Wikipedia users created a page regarding the defamation case. The page included a forum where users expressed criticism of the single judge’s order.
    • The High Court construed the creation of the page and the forum discussions as actions in contempt of courtand issued a take-down order.
  • Development of the Case
    • After the single judge issued the interim order, the Division Bench upheld it.
    • This led the Wikimedia Foundation to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • Supreme Court’s Observations
    • Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the importance of debating important issues publicly. They stated that:
      • “Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court.”
      • The High Court had overreacted to the adverse comments made about its take-down order in the discussion forum.

 

Key Points in the Supreme Court's Ruling

  • The Court’s order focused on the legality of the take-down order concerning the Wikimedia Foundation’s appeal.
  • This ruling followed a similar one from April 2025, which set aside a take-down order to remove allegedly defamatory edits on the ANI Wikipedia page.
  • The right to know was identified as a basic right under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
  • The ruling cast the case against the Foundation in a light that may have been overlooked by the Delhi High Court.

 

Right to Know and Access to Justice

  • The Supreme Court noted that the right to know is crucial for the public's ability to participate in public development and to access justice.
  • The right to know is linked to the democratic process and ensures that citizens are informed, allowing them to participate meaningfully in public debates.

 

Intermediary Status of the Wikimedia Foundation

  • The Wikimedia Foundation’s role is limited to providing the technical infrastructure for Wikipedia.
  • The Foundation does not engage in the creation or curation of content but allows users to create and edit pages according to established guidelines.
  • This setup allows users to operate independently, and Wikipedia itself only collects and organizes information from external sources, rather than generating new content.

 

Impact of the Ruling on the Foundation’s Role

  • The Wikimedia Foundation helps ensure that users can contribute freely, protecting them against reprisalsfrom powerful entities while maintaining the quality of contributions through its democratic platform.
  • The Court held that freedom of expression and the right to know must be upheld, and this principle should guide decisions involving the Foundation’s intermediary status.

 

Public Discourse and Accountability

  • Justices Oka and Bhuyan invoked former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, quoting Jeremy Bentham:
    • “Publicity about courtroom proceedings… keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial.”
  • This reference underscored the importance of public accountability and the role of public discourse in maintaining transparency and integrity in the judicial process.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms the right to know as a fundamental aspect of democracy, emphasizing the critical role of free expression and public debate. By overturning the Delhi High Court's take-down order, the Court upholds the principle that the public should have access to information and the right to scrutinize judicial actions. This decision reinforces the idea that judicial transparency and accountability are vital for the healthy functioning of democracy, ensuring that public discourse remains open and unimpeded.