In its verdict on live-in relationships, the Supreme Court briefly explained “palimony” and “common law marriages”, but urged readers to look up further details on Google. This is, perhaps, practical—only a little different from references to previous judgements. Courts have enough to do without delving into every concept within a verdict.
But in the same judgment, the Supreme Court cited Wikipedia; a search of the database Indiankanoon.org shows that, since May, at least 70 judgements have done likewise. Wikipedia is mutable, easily changed by its users; the Wikipedia page seen by judges when preparing a verdict can be different from that seen by readers 10 minutes or six months or seven years hence. A court that can quote Flaubert and Tolstoy should surely be able to call up more lasting, reliable resources than Wikipedia.