I don't find this argument compelling in this case, because news agencies cited by the Wikipedia article in question were not themselves subject to similar or the same lawsuit.
If that were to happen, and you were to then publish an article about this exact court case on your blog, you'd be found in contempt of court and rightly so. Even if the blog article only summarizes and links to other content, like the news articles. You were restricted from speaking about the case, and you broke that restriction. What part of "don't make public statements about this case" didn't you understand?
That's what's going on here. Wikipedia is, essentially, Wikimedia Foundation's blog. This article about the court case is, legally speaking, Wikimedia speaking about an ongoing case they are involved with. If the court issues a gag order, they have to respect it. This is subjudice, not censorship.
The fact that this hasn't happened before should tell everyone that this is not business as usual. No other government in the world has caused WMF to respond in such a way, which leads me to believe that this case is not as obvious as you say.
Also, due to license terms of Wikipedia, by deleting the page, individually and collectively, Wikipedia editors are being denied their rights as authors. This may be a copyright violation in India, in the jurisdiction of the editors, in the legal jurisdiction in which WMF/Wikipedia are incorporated in, and/or all of the above, that is to say, worldwide.
I suspect WMF complied in protest in order to draw attention to the censorious nature of the rulings so far.
Seems like it's working well for them.
Wikipedia explicitly considers it censorship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c...
Archived just in case!
If something is written on wikipedia it's because they are okay with it. The political slant of wikipedia is an expression of WMF views.
Also an important point is that wikipedia aims to create a work that is a coherent whole spoken with one voice rather than say hosting a discussion where writing is clearly attributed to its respective authors.