Victim of cut-copy-paste: SC pens judgment on how to write a judgement

India

oi-Vicky Nanjappa

New Delhi, Aug 25: The Supreme Court wrote down a judgment on how to write a judgment. It emphasised that a judgment must not confuse the reader using the veneer of complex language because it speaks to the present and to the future.

A Bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud emphasised that every judgment is a brick in consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based. According to a Hindustan Times report, the Bench also said that judgment is a critical instrument in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.

Pegasus to Bilkis: Big day in SC today

The format laid down includes providing headings, sub-headings, paragraphs, numbers, a table of contents for long judgments, digital signatures, properly inserted watermarks to enable access for the visually disabled who use screen readers and the Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion or the IRAC structure.

The Issue refers to the question of law that the court is deciding while the Rule connotes the lawyers’ submission on the pertinent issue. The reasoning of a court forms the Application while the Conclusion records the final decision.

The Bench also comprising Justice A S Bopanna said while judges have their own style of judgment writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles. “The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language. The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact, which arise for decision…While a judgment is read by those as well who have training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of discourse,” the Supreme Court said.

Justice Chandrachud while writing the verdict for the bench highlighted that the confidence in the judicial process is predicated on the trust which its written word generates.

“If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded… Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal dialogue,” the Bench said.

“If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded… Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal dialogue,” the Bench said.

The court also spoke about the importance of judicial writing as it came across as incomprehensible judgment from the Himachal Pradesh High Court over disciplinary proceedings against a bank employee.

The Bench regretted that the judiciary is also becoming a victim of the cut-copy-paste convenience afforded by software developers. The judgment must contain reasoning the Bench said.

Courts are much engaged in the slow yet not so silent process of bringing about a social transformation.

How good or deficient they are in that quest is tested by the quality of the reasons as much as by the manner in which the judicial process is structured,” the Bench said.

Equally significant is the fact that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public institutions committed to governance under law, the Supreme Court added.

The judgment emphasised that all judicial institutions must ensure that judgments and orders being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them.

Courts and tribunals must also ensure that judgments and orders uploaded are accessible and signed using digital signatures. “They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens,” the Bench said.

The Bench in the case on hand set aside the November 2020 High Court order and sent the matter to the HC with a request for an expeditious disposal.