The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Civil Appeal No. 5455 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10637 of 2025), raised strong concerns over the growing tendency among advocates to file excessively bulky Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) containing lengthy synopses, legal arguments, and unnecessary annexures. The appeal was filed by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. against ANI Media Private Limited & Others, challenging interim orders of the Delhi High Court.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed:
“We see 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.”
The Court noted that many SLPs included documents that were not essential to the adjudication of the case:
“There is also a tendency to file very bulky Special Leave Petitions by annexing documents which are not required. We deprecate this tendency.”
Referring to the practice of quoting reported decisions at length in pleadings, the Court emphasized that:
“Many members of the Bar have forgotten the basic principle that law ought not to be pleaded. However, in Special Leave Petitions and counter affidavits, paragraphs after paragraphs of reported decisions are being quoted.”
The Court cautioned that such voluminous filings do not enhance the merits of the case:
“The members of the Bar must remember that by filing bulky pleadings, one cannot improve merits of the case.”
The observations came during the hearing of a civil appeal against the interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court in favor of ANI Media Private Limited. The Supreme Court held that the interim relief granted by the High Court in paragraph 33(i) of its order was “very broadly worded” and “not capable of being specifically implemented” as there was no clarity on who would determine whether the impugned content was false, misleading, or defamatory. Clause (iii) of the same paragraph was also stayed.
The counsel for ANI Media Private Limited submitted that, in view of the Supreme Court’s observations, they would not oppose the setting aside of the impugned orders dated April 2, 2025 and April 8, 2025, with liberty to seek an injunction limited to specific content and its re-publication. Accepting this submission, the Court set aside the impugned orders and granted liberty to the respondent to file a fresh application before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for appropriate relief.
The Court directed that:
“If such an application is made, it will be independently decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observation made by this Court.”
All legal contentions were left open for adjudication before the High Court. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the order directed to be forwarded to the Secretary of the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association.
Citation:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs ANI Media Private Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5455 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10637 of 2025)
