A. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) – Freedom of speech – Contempt proceedings -- Postponement of publication – Reasonable restriction -- If a member of the public or a litigant or for that matter even the media tries to scandalize the court by making sweeping unfounded allegations against the court or the Judge(s) or by imputing motives against the Judge or Judges who had passed a judicial order or had conducted the court proceedings, certainly the courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against such contemnors -- This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication as contempt of court is a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

(Para 28)

B. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) – Freedom of speech –  Judiciary and Media -- For the improvement of any system and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key -- That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court -- Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy which is a basic feature of our Constitution -- For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other -- The above position has become more nuanced in the digital age.

-- By impugned order Division Bench of the High Court found prima facie that the 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, directed the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to take down/delete the said pages within thirty six (36) hours.

Held, Division Bench had reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions – Impugned directions contained of the impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 31-33)