In modern conditions, the abundance of various open sources of official information (mainly on the Internet) makes legally significant information on the case available to an indefinite circle of people. In the current reality, obtaining evidentiary information of this kind does not seem to be excessively labor-intensive for the court. The article discusses whether it is advisable to artificially restrict the court in obtaining this information only for doctrinal reasons of presenting evidence by persons participating in the case, and whether it is unacceptable for the court to collect evidence on its own initiative. The existing restriction seemed to be relevant in conditions where the evidentiary information was of an exclusive nature, and it was associated with certain efforts for the parties to obtain it. At the moment, the court is able to conduct a kind of “judicial investigation”, which is aimed at both discovering new information and verifying the information provided by the parties. By “judicial investigation” the author does not mean any formal procedure integrated into civil or arbitration proceedings, but rather a functional, cognitive aspect of judicial activity. Through “judicial investigation”, the court acquires a powerful tool for establishing and verifying the facts alleged by the parties. Considering possible arguments “for” and “against” such an investigation, the author leans in favor of its admissibility, despite the fact that it does not have a general character, does not turn into a purposeful search and collection by the court of information about the parties to the process and the case on the Internet, but turns into a targeted means of checking individual legally significant circumstances of the case.