Rulings in Complex Language
Indian Cases where complex language used by courts/legislature was commented on by the Supreme Court of India and High Courts.
| S. No. | Observation | Case |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | A Supreme Court bench comprising justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna in August 2022, set aside a judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, stating that the decision of the High Court was ‘incomprehensible’. The judges also said that while judges “may have their own style of writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles.” Chief Justice Chandrachud further stressed upon the significance of a simplified analysis of a complicated legal matter and noted, “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 the law and fact which arise for decision.” | State Bank of India and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sood, MANU/SC/1040/2022 (Neutral Citation: 2022/INSC/833) |
| 2. | In 2017, the Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta stated, “it is not possible to comprehend the contents” of the judgement of the High Court. | Sarla Sood And Ors v. Pawan Kumar Sharma, MANU/SCOR/18105/2017 |
| 3. | The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice A.M. Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra held that the impugned order issued by the High Court was not required to be 60 pages long. | Surjeet Singh and Ors. v. Sadhu Singh and Ors., MANU/SC/1376/2018 (Neutral Citation: 2018/INSC/1136) |
| 4. | In January 2022, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and Justice PS Narasimha, held a judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to be “incomprehensible”. The Senior Counsel in the case also told the court that they were unable to understand the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it may need to be sent back to the High Court for it to be rewritten. | |
| 5. | In another case, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that nothing from the High Court judgement could be deciphered. The court stated, “the judgement of the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. The reasons on the basis of which the High Court has proceeded to allow the petitions and set aside the reassessment cannot be discerned from the judgements.” | State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Himachal Aluminium and Conductors, MANU/SCOR/68161/2022 |
| 6. | The Supreme Court asked the Bombay High Court to pass an order which can be understood. The apex court noted that the impugned order issued by the High Court was “unintelligible” it could not be deciphered what the decision of the High Court was. | Surekha Nitin Kapse v. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/SCOR/44440/2019 |
| 7. | The Supreme Court commenting on the drafting of legislation remarked that the court “deplored the clumsy draftsmanship displayed in a statute which affects the common man in his daily bread. It is unfortunate that easy comprehensibility and simplicity for the laity are discarded sometimes through over-sophisticated scholarship in the art of drawing up legislative Bills. It cannot be overstressed that a new orientation for drafting methodology adopting directness of language and avoiding involved reference and obscurity is overdue.” | Murlidhar Meghraj Loya and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/0146/1976 (Neutral Citation: 1976/INSC/156) |
| 8. | The Supreme Court emphasising on the importance of the recipient of an order being able to understand the contents therein observed, “an order in plain and simple language providing clarity of how the subjective satisfaction was formed is what a detenu would look for, since the detenu has a right to represent against the order of detention and claim that such order should not have been made at all. If the detenu fails to comprehend the grounds of detention, the very purpose of affording him the opportunity to make a representation could be defeated.” | Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telangana and Ors., MANU/SC/0966/2023 (Neutral Citation: 2023/INSC/788) |
| 9. | Emphasising on the importance of law to be understood by people, the court observed, “we must emphasize once more that legislative draftsmen and legislators must not confuse each other but start talking to their real audience the people, by writing law in unmistakable and simple language.” | Chitan J. Vaswani and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., MANU/SC/0101/1975 (Neutral Citation: 1975/INSC/265) |
| 10. | Observing the many ways legislative text, precedents and litigation process serves as intensified deniers of social justice to underprivileged working class, the Supreme Court remarked, “is it possible, that the legislative chambers are too preoccupied with other pressing business to listen to court signals calling for clarification of ambiguous clauses?” | Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and Ors., MANU/SC/0257/1978 (Neutral Citation: 1978/INSC/41) |
| 11. | The Supreme Court directed that reports prepared as per Section 19(1) and (2) POCSO, should be in a language that the child can understand the contents, as required by Section 19(3). | Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., MANU/SC/0340/2022 (Neutral Citation: 2022/INSC/318) |
| 12. | The Supreme Court observed that verdict expressed in simple language and plain words needs only a judicial look. “…this Court has, in simple language and plain words, expressed its verdict in the 'quote' above. It needs no clarification much less any interpretation. It only needed a judicial-look…” | Ors. vs. Pratap Narain and Ors., MANU/SC/0250/1992 (Neutral Citation: 1992/INSC/142) |
| 13. | The Supreme Court expressed exasperation over being obliged to acquit the accused because lower court did not employ simple language to make the accused clearly understand the case against him and observed: “this is another of those cases in which Courts are compelled to acquit because Magistrates and Sessions Judges fail to appreciate the importance of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and fail to carry out the duty that is cast upon them of questioning the accused properly and fairly, bringing home to his mind in clear and simple language the exact case he has to meet and each material point that is sought to be made against him, and of affording him a chance to explain them if he can and so desires. Had the Sessions Judge done that in this case it is possible that we would not have been obliged to acquit.” | Machander vs. State of Hyderabad, MANU/SC/0029/1955 (Neutral Citation: 1955/INSC/46) |
| 14. | Refusing to interpret a provision in a manner that would violate the plain and simple language used therein, the Supreme Court observed that the provision in question expresses “a specific intention to encompass the entire section 5 of the Act, reading it otherwise and to confine its relevance and application to only clause (j) of section 5 would amount to not only rewriting the statutory provision by the court, but also doing violence to the plain and simple language used.” | The Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Kerala vs. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., Kottayam, MANU/SC/0731/2000 (Neutral Citation: 2000/INSC/549) |
| 15. | While coming across an observation by a lower court, the Supreme Court remarked, “it is not easy to understand what precisely this observation means; but from the context it would be reasonable to infer that…” | Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala,
MANU/SC/0250/1959 |
| 16. | Emphasising on the importance of use of simple language in decrees and orders so that the parties can understand the same, the Karnataka High Court observed that “it is advisable for the courts below to use simple language so that it gives proper meaning and there would not be any difficulty in its interpretation.” | P.S. Patil and Ors. v. Lakhamappa Kallappa Khot and Ors., MANU/KA/0543/2008 |
| 17. | Another instance where emphasis was placed on using simple language which can be understood by common people, the Delhi High Court observed that, “judicial officers should avoid high flown language and use simple language. The judgments are basically meant to be read and understood by laymen, not by scholars.” | Syed Ahmed Bhukhari v. State and Ors., MANU/DE/0737/1997 |
| 18. | Observing that legislative text is generally difficult for laymen to understand and hence Judges should explain the applicable provision of the charge in simple language, the Bombay High Court observed, “it is therefore desirable and necessary that the Judge in charging the jury should explain the law on the subject in single non-technical language.” | Emperor v. Hasan Abdul Karim (No. 2), MANU/MH/0010/1944 |