Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the lawyers filing bulky and long synopsis and special leave petitions, saying many members of the Bar have forgotten the basic principle that law ought not to be pleaded.

"We see a growing tendency in the Supreme Court Bar to file bulky and long synopsis. Shockingly, we find that in many cases, in the synopsis, grounds of challenge are incorporated. Law is pleaded in the synopsis by quoting various decisions relied upon. There is also a tendency to file very bulky Special Leave Petitions by annexing documents which are not required," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

Expressing its anguish, the court pointed out in Special Leave Petitions and counter affidavits, paragraphs after paragraphs of reported decisions are being quoted. 

"The members of the Bar must remember that by filing bulky pleadings, one cannot improve the merits of the case - In this case, even copies of some of the decisions of this court are part of this appeal. The members of the Bar cannot indulge in such practices", the bench added.

The court made the observations and directed for sending a copy of its order to the Secretary, SC Advocates on Record Association.

The court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by Wikimedia Foundation Inc against ANI Media Private Ltd and Others.

It found the interim relief granted by the Delhi High Court division bench was very broadly worded. 

"Prima facie, such a broad interim relief is not capable of being specifically implemented. The reason is that there is no clarity on the issue of who will decide whether the contents are false, misleading and defamatory. Therefore, we stay the interim relief granted in terms of clause (i) of paragraph 33 of the impugned order," the bench directed.

The court clarified that pendency of the present appeal will not operate as stay of the appeal pending before the Delhi High Court.

In view of the observations made by the court, the ANI counsel said he has no objection if the impugned orders of April 2, 2025 and April 8, 2025 passed by the Single Judge and the division bench are set aside by granting liberty to make fresh application for grant of injunction. 

The counsel made the submission in the light of the prima facie observations that the prayers made before the Single Judge were too wide and injunction granted by the High Court was not capable of being enforced.    

Accordingly, the bench set aside the impugned orders and granted liberty to ANI for placing fresh application before the Single Judge for grant of appropriate interim injunction in respect of specific content and re-publication of the specific content appearing on the site of the appellant. 

Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors.