Highlighting the role of public discourse and media scrutiny in a functioning democracy, the Supreme Court on Friday asserted that courts, as open and transparent institutions, must remain receptive to public observations, debates, and constructive criticism.
A bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasised that even when a matter is sub judice, public and media discussions on significant issues should not be stifled. "Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if it is currently under judicial consideration.”
Underscoring the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and the media, the bench noted that both institutions serve as foundational pillars of India’s constitutional democracy. “For a liberal democracy to flourish, the judiciary and the media must complement each other,” the court remarked.
The court’s remarks came while overturning a Delhi High Court ruling that found a Wikipedia page on news agency ANI’s defamation case against the platform to be prima facie contemptuous.
The High Court had ordered the page’s removal, noting that it contained a report claiming the judge had warned Wikipedia could be banned in India if it did not remove allegedly defamatory content about ANI.
“Courts, as public and open institutions, must always remain open to public observations, debates, and criticism. In fact, courts should welcome such discourse. Even when a matter is sub judice, it is essential that important issues are actively discussed by the public and the press,” reads the judgement.
The judgement stressed that while criticism should be thoughtful bearing in mind that judges cannot respond publicly courts should only intervene when such expressions cross the line into contempt, such as scandalising the court or its judges.
“It is not the role of the judiciary to instruct the media on what to publish or delete,” Justice Bhuyan stated in the judgement adding, “Both the judiciary and the media are integral to our democracy, which is a core feature of the Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, these institutions must reinforce each other.”
“We may once again remind ourselves of the profound words of this Court expressed through the nine-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice,” the judgement reads.
