STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus AJAY KUMAR SOOD

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 16-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
v.
AJAY KUMAR SOOD
(Civil Appeal No. 5305 of 2022)
AUGUST 16, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Judgment/orders: Writing of judgments – Importance of –
Broad guidelines, explaination of – Held: Judgment writing is a
critical instrument in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule
by the law – While judges may have their own style of judgment
writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across their styles –
Purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader
behind the veneer of complex language – Judge must write to provide
an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which
arise for decision – Judgments are primarily meant for those whose
cases are decided by judges – Judgments of the High Courts and
the Supreme Court also serve as precedents to guide future benches
– Judgment is a manifestation of reason, which provide the basis of
the view which the decision maker has espoused, of the balances
which have been drawn – Reasons are crucial to the legitimacy of a
judge’s work – They provide an insight into judicial analysis –
Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work
of courts as public institutions committed to governance under law
– In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts
to structure them in a manner such that the ‘Issue, Rule, Application
and Conclusion’ are easily identifiable – Well-renowned ‘IRAC’
method generally followed for analyzing cases and structuring
submissions can also benefit judgments when it is complemented by
recording the facts and submissions – On facts, impugned judgment
being incoherent and incomprehensible is set aside and remanded
back – Incoherent judgments have a serious impact upon the dignity
of our institutions.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh is incomprehensible. This Court in
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 507
507
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
appeal found it difficult to navigate through the maze of
incomprehensible language in the decision of the High Court. A
litigant for whom the judgment is primarily meant would be placed
in an even more difficult position. Untrained in the law, the litigant
is confronted with language which is not heard, written or spoken
in contemporary expression. Language of the kind in a judgment
defeats the purpose of judicial writing. Judgment writing of the
genre in appeal detracts from the efficacy of the judicial process.
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. Judgments are primarily
meant for those whose cases are decided by judges. Judgments
of the High Courts and the Supreme Court also serve as
precedents to guide future benches. A judgment must make sense
to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of
the case. While a judgment is read by those as well who have
training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of
discourse. 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. [Para 10][517-
B-F]
1.2 The case is remitted back to the High Court for
consideration afresh. The judgment of the High Court is simply
incomprehensible leaving no option than to remand the
proceedings. The High Court must appreciate the delay and
expense occasioned as a consequence and must make an effort
to record reasons which are understood by all stake-holders. [Para
11][517-F-G]
1.3 Amidst an overburdened judicial docket, a view is
sometimes voiced that parties are concerned with the outcome
and little else. This view proceeds on the basis that parties value
the outcome and not the reasoning which constitutes the
foundation. This view undervalues the importance of the judicial
function and of the reasons which are critical to it. The work of a
judge cannot be reduced to a statistic about the disposal of a
case. Every judgment is an incremental step towards consolidation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
and change. In adhering to precedent, the judgment reflects a
commitment to protecting legal principle. This imparts certa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.