Right to Know in the Digital Age

GS2 – Polity

Context:

The Supreme Court (SC) overturned a Delhi High Court order that had directed Wikimedia to delete a Wikipedia page, thereby affirming citizens’ right to know and the freedom of expression.

Wikimedia’s Role as an Intermediary

• Infrastructure Provider, Not Content Creator:
  Wikimedia hosts Wikipedia but does not author or edit its content. Articles are generated and managed by users.
• Legal Protection under IT Act, 2000 (Section 79):
  As a neutral intermediary, Wikimedia is protected under the “safe harbour” clause, provided it adheres to due diligence and does not initiate transmission of content.
• Community-Based Governance:
  Wikipedia operates through a self-regulated user community where content disputes and edits are handled independently of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Constitutional Basis of the Right to Know

• Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Expression:
  Includes both the right to speak and the right to access information, forming the foundation of informed public discourse.
• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
  The right to access truthful, relevant information is intrinsic to individual autonomy, dignity, health, safety, and legal awareness.

Key Supreme Court Observations

• Fundamental Nature of the Right to Know:
  The right to inform and be informed is essential to a functioning democracy and must be constitutionally safeguarded.
• Protection of Open Debate:
  Public and media discussions on important matters — including those under judicial consideration — must remain protected.

Judicial Approach to Digital Rights

• Preservation of Online Free Speech:
  Courts must defend expression on digital platforms, especially when intermediaries do not control the content.
• No Vicarious Liability for Platforms:
  Intermediaries should not be held liable for user-generated content unless they fail due diligence or knowingly host unlawful material.

Standards for Contempt and Free Speech

• Criticism vs. Contempt:
  Legitimate criticism of judicial orders should not be equated with obstruction of justice.
• Support for Sub Judice Debate:
  As long as it does not prejudice ongoing trials, public discussion on sub judice matters should be encouraged for democratic engagement.

Supreme Court’s Critique of Delhi High Court’s Order

• Flawed Contempt Interpretation:
  The HC wrongly treated user criticism on Wikipedia as contempt instead of recognizing it as protected speech.
• Violation of the Publicity Principle:
  Citing Jeremy Bentham, the SC emphasized that transparency in judicial proceedings ensures accountability.
• Suppression of Democratic Discourse:
  The content removal order curtailed open critique and undermined democratic values.

Way Forward

• Revise Intermediary Liability Norms:
  Legal frameworks should clearly protect platforms while allowing takedowns in legitimate cases.
• Promote Free and Informed Dialogue:
  The judiciary must uphold the public’s right to question, debate, and access information.
• Exercise Judicial Restraint:
  High Courts must be cautious in issuing takedown orders that can infringe on fundamental and digital rights.