Open justice and free speech bar take-down orders absent real prejudice to pending proceedings

Restrictive take-down directions concerning pending proceedings are justified only where publication or online discussion creates a real and substantial risk to the administration of justice, and the response is necessary and proportionate. The Court held that criticism or discussion of ongoing litigation is not, by itself, impermissible under open justice, free speech and the right to know. On the facts, the High Court had acted disproportionately and had not met the required threshold, so the direction to delete the impugned pages and discussion was set aside. The Court also found it unnecessary to decide intermediary-status issues in view of the pending suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the direction to take down or delete the impugned pages and discussion was legally sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court examined the interface between open justice, freedom of speech and expression, the right to know, and the limits imposed by the sub judice principle and contempt jurisdiction. It reiterated that criticism or discussion of ongoing proceedings is not, by itself, impermissible, and that restrictive directions affecting publication or dissemination can be justified only where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. The Court found that the High Court had reacted disproportionately and had not established the threshold required for such a direction. The Court also noted that, even assuming intermediary status issues arose, it was not necessary to decide them in view of the pending suit.

Conclusion: The direction to take down or delete the pages and discussion was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned restraint on publication and discussion was removed, reaffirming that robust public debate on matters before court cannot be curtailed absent a legally sufficient basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may restrain publication or online discussion concerning pending proceedings only on proof of a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial or administration of justice, and such restraint must satisfy necessity and proportionality; absent that threshold, a take-down direction impermissibly infringes open justice and free speech.

---