Wikipedia is completely undependable; supreme court clear bananas A to Z Counsel

New Delhi : ‘It is not worth relying solely on online sources like Wikipedia. All sources are based on information supplied by different people and editing done by users. That is why information can be misleading’, the Supreme Court clarified on Tuesday.

Online sources providing free access to world-wide knowledge are acceptable. However, beware of using such sources to settle legal disputes, as Ny. Surya Kant and Ny. Vikram Nath’s bench said. This source of knowledge is based on information supplied by different people and edited by users. That’s why it is not worth relying completely on such online sources in terms of truth. These sources may spread misleading information, as the court has pointed out, or so,’ the bench said.

Courts and judicial officers should make efforts to make lawyers rely on more reliable and authentic sources, the bench also mentioned. Inspections were taken up by the Court itself in connection with a case regarding eligible classification of imported ‘All in One Integrated Desktop Computers’ under Schedule I of the Central Excise Act, 1985. Judicial officers, especially the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) refer extensively to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their findings, Yakde Benchethane Laksh Vedhale.

In particular, in 2010, the removal of a cot would have led retired Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju to refer to Wikipedia for an explanation of the term ‘common law marriage’. Justice Katju took the information available on Wikipedia to formulate four-penny guidelines and concluded that live-in relationships must be resolved in order to be classified as a ‘relationship’ in the nature of marriage under the Prevention of Family Violence Act, 2005.