# October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order

​$~27.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 146/2024 & CM APPL. 60259/2024, CM APPL. 60260/2024, CM APPL. 60261/2024
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. .....Appellant
Through:
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tine Abraham, Mr. Aayush Marwah, Ms. Shivani Rawat, Mr. Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Mr. Nikhil Narendran and Mr. Thomas Vallianeth, Advs.
versus
ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. .....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Akshit Mago, Mr. Om Batra and Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 16.10.2024
1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had drawn this Court’s attention to a page published on the website ‘Wikipedia’ wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 524/2024 was adversely commented upon. It was stated in the said ​publication that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to release the identities of the editors who made the edits amounted to ‘censorship and a threat to the flow of information’.
2. This Court 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.1 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 take down of the offending pages and discussions, the said order would be complied with.
5. Since this Court is of the prima facie view that the aforesaid comments on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the discussion on the observations made by this Bench amount to interference in Court proceedings and violation of the subjudice principle by a party to the proceeding and borders on contempt, this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.– the appellant herein to take down/delete the ​said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours. List on 21st October, 2024.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2024 N.Khanna
This work is the work of Government of India. Section 52(1)(q) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 allows for the reproduction or publication of
* any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;
* any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;
* the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the government;
* any judgement or order of a court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgement or order is prohibited by the court, the Tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be.
The decision of the Supreme Court of India in "Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr" on 12 December, 2007 interpreted this section of the Act as making the material public domain.
This work is also in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse