BREVITY, THE SOUL OF VERDICTS

Nowadays, lengthy, incomprehensible judgments, particularly in constitutional cases, are the order of the day. But the interpretation of law must be clear, precise and succinct so that people understand them

- Lokendra Malik and Prof Yogesh Pratap Singh

LAST week, in Ajit Mohan vs Legislative Assembly, Delhi, the Supreme Court observed that judgments should be more crisp, clear and precise so that the common man can understand the law being laid down by courts easily. In addition, the Court stated that lawyers should finish their arguments within a short time and avoid citing unnecessary precedents.

“We do believe that there needs to be clarity in the thought process on what is to be addressed before the Court. Counsels must be clear on the contours of their submissions from the very inception of the arguments. This should be submitted as a brief synopsis by both sides and then strictly adhered to,” the Court said. It added that much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of time period for oral submissions is an aspect which must be brought into force. “We really doubt whether any judicial forum anywhere in the world would allow such time periods to be taken for oral submissions and these be further supplemented by written synopsis thereafter. Instead of restricting oral arguments it has become a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time.”

This is a timely suggestion that must be taken seriously by all courts of law. As per Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court becomes the law of the land, but this is confined only to a privileged class of lawyers and academicians who can understand the judgment. Nowadays, it has become a fashion to deliver lengthy judgments, particularly in constitutional cases that cannot be easily understood by the people because of their length and repeated observations by the judges.