TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comment on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to interference in Court proceedings, and that too, on a website managed by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. who is a defendant in the suit. The subjudice principle, prima facie, seems to have been 'violated with impunity' by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. - the appellant herein. 3. This Court is also informed by the learned counsel for respondent No. l that after the last hearing, the observations made by this Bench have been 'opened up for discussion' on Wikimedia Foundation Inc. website which, according to us, complicates and compounds the issue at hand. 4. At this stage, Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, on instructions, states that neither the pages wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge have been commented upon nor the pages on which the discussion qua the observations made by the Division Bench have been created by the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. He further states that, in the event this Court were to direct to take down of the offending pages and discussions, the said order would be compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Single Judge of the High Court passed the following order: 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are claimed to be the 'Administrators' of defendant No. l. 11. Learned senior counsel for defendant No. l submits that they have no connection with defendant Nos. 2 to 4. 12. Keeping in view the above submissions, defendant No. l is directed to disclose the subscriber details of defendant Nos.2 to 4 to the plaintiff, through its counsel, within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the said information, the plaintiff shall take steps for ensuring service of summons and notice on the application on the said defendants. 8. Respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Order X Rule 2 and Order XI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Civil Procedure Code' hereinafter) in the suit seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant for alleged willful disobedience to the aforesaid order dated 20.08.2024. The same has been registered as I.A. No. 38498 of 2024. 9. On 17.09.2024, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express (E-edition) titled why the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant submits that the Division Bench is palpably in error in holding that a prima facie case of interference in court proceeding, violation of the subjudice principle by a party to the proceeding and bordering on contempt was made out. He submits that High Court failed to consider that appellant is merely an intermediary having the limited role of providing technical infrastructure to host the platform and does not edit, update, maintain or monitor the contents on the platform. This was applicable to the talk page as well as to the video. Appellant, not being the author, cannot be said to have violated the sub judice principle merely because the two pages were hosted on its platform. In any case, what were being hosted were secondary source material. 15.1. Insofar the subjudice principle is concerned, learned senior counsel has referred to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603 and submits that the aforesaid decision provides for an order for postponement of publication in the event of violation of the subjudice principle but for determining such violation, the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent proceeding. The page hosted on the platform of the appellant titled "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (article page) along with the discussions concerning the article page hosted on its corresponding "talk page" (talk page) (collectively hereinafter referred to as 'impugned page') contain the details regarding the defamation case filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and some comments allegedly made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the case. 19. There was also a talk page hosted on the appellant's platform on 14.10.2024, where discussions were held on the ongoing proceedings between the parties before the High Court which was noticed by the Division Bench in paragraph 3 of the impugned order. Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned order opined that the comments and discussion on the observations made by the Bench amounts to interference in court proceedings and violation of the subjudice principle by a party to the proceeding and borders on contempt. It therefore directed the appellant to take down/delete the said pages and discussion within thirtysix (36) hours. 20. As noticed above, while directing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant in certain optionally fully convertible bonds with interest. This came to be challenged by the appellant. This Court had issued notice to the respondent. While putting the appellant to notice as to how it intended to secure the liabilities incurred by them to the optionally fully convertible bond holders during the pendency of the civil appeals, it was directed to file an affidavit together with a valuation certificate indicating fair market value of the assets proposed to be offered as security. Pursuant thereto, appellant filed an affidavit before this Court explaining the manner in which it proposed to secure its liability. While the matter was subjudiced, this Court communicated to the parties that they should try to reach a consensus with respect to an acceptable security in the form of an unencumbered asset. Learned counsel for the appellant addressed a letter to the learned counsel for the respondent enclosing the proposal with details of security to secure repayment to the bond holders as a pre-condition for stay during the pendency of the appeals. There were also correspondences between the respective Advocates-on-Record. A day prior to the hearing, one of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order constitutes a restriction on Article 19(1)(a) and whether such restriction is saved under Article 19(2). Answering the above question, this Court observed that a postponement order is actually a balancing measure. It seeks to balance the right to free speech as well as the right to information on the one hand and the presumption of innocence of the accused on the other hand. However, this Court cautioned that given that postponement orders curtail the freedom of expression of third parties, such orders have to be passed only in cases in which there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice. Therefore, such orders of postponement should be ordered for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the publication. It should be passed only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings. The order of postponement will only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test otherwise favours non-publication for a limited period. If a High Court or the Supreme Court, being courts of record, pass postponement orders under their inherent jurisdiction, such o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....probity. It keeps the Judge himself, while trying, under trial. 24.3. Referring to Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra), it was observed that various judgments of this Court have reinforced the importance of open courts. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging functions as judicial tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the court-room. Publicity is the very soul of justice. 24.4. Justice Chandrachud concluded that live streaming of court proceedings is a significant instrument for enhancing the accountability of judicial institutions and of all those who participate in the judicial process. It will result in the dissemination of info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he courts should always be to protect and promote the fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is one of the most cherished rights a citizen can have in a liberal constitutional democracy. The Courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression. As a matter of fact, the Courts must remain ever vigilant to thwart any attempt to undermine the Constitution and the constitutional values, including the freedom of speech and expression. 26. Ramesh Kumaran Vs. State 2025 SCC OnLine 667 is a case which arose out of a dispute between two lawyers of the same Bar leading to lodging of first information reports (FIRs) by both the sides. While hearing the matter, this Court impressed upon the parties to put an end to the entire controversy. It was observed that the second respondent had tendered an apology to the first appellant. Thereafter, he tendered a sincere and unconditional apology not only to this Court but also to the first appellant, Bar Council and to the Bar Association. This Court therefore suggested an amicable settlement. However, the first appellant was unwilling to accept such apology and thereby compromise the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds contempt of court. Speaking for the Bench, Chief Justice Beg in his opening remarks said that if criticism of court proceedings or court orders is done in a reasonable manner, which pre-supposes accuracy of information about a matter on which any criticism is offered, and arguments are directed fairly against any reasoning adopted, I would, speaking for myself, be the last person to consider it objectionable even if some criticism offered is erroneous. In the ultimate analysis, the Bench while dropping the proceedings observed that the need for appropriate norms of conduct exist in practically every sphere of life in which enlightened people strive to attain exalted ends irrespective of consequences. 29.1. In his concurring opinion Justice Krishna Iyer culled out several principles. Relevant portion of his opinion reads thus : 27. The first rule in this branch of contempt power is a wise economy of use by the court of this branch of its jurisdiction. The court will act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardised by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the Judges, where the attack is calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The court is wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble limits even when the focus of its critical attention is the court, including the highest court. The next normative guideline i.e. the fifth is that Judges should not be hypersensitive even when distortions and criticisms overstep the limits; Judges should deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude. Finally, and that is the sixth principle, after evaluating the totality of factors, if the court considers the attack on the Judge or Judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow. This is to uphold public interest and public justice. 29.3. Justice Krishna Iyer referred to a judgment of Lord Denning and observed that it was a very valuable and remarkably fresh approach to the question of criticism of courts in intemperate language and invocation of contempt of court against the contemnor. Justice Krishna Iyer highlighted a few observations of Lord Denning as under : 40. A very valuable and remarkably fresh approach to this question of criticism of courts in intemperate language and invocation of contempt of court against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the analysis would only be repetitive which we should avoid. However, before moving on, we may once again remind ourselves of the profound words of this Court expressed through the nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra): trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. Infact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is subjudice before a court. However, those who offer criticism should remember that Judges cannot respond to such criticism but if a publication scandalizes 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 t....