The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A. S. Bopanna was hearing an Appeal and found that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was incomprehensible. It was difficult to navigate through the maze of incomprehensible language. The Supreme Court Bench discussed in detail about judgment writing etc. and issued guidelines and directions for the courts and tribunals.
The present Appeal arose from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court affirmed the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) dated 09 July 2019.
In 2013, the appellant issued a charge sheet to the respondent in a disciplinary enquiry on a charge of gross misconduct. The enquiry officer submitted an enquiry report dated 19 October 2013 finding the respondent guilty of all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by its order dated 06 November 2013. The appellate authority of the bank rejected the respondent’s appeal on 03 January 2014.
The respondent raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to challenge his termination before the CGIT. The enquiry proceedings and report were held to be vitiated as they were found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice by the Tribunal’s order dated 25 September 2018. However, the bank was allowed to lead evidence to justify the charges against the respondent.
Based on the evidence led before the Tribunal on the charge of misconduct, the CGIT by its order dated 09 July 2019 came to the conclusion that the first charge against the respondent was proved. The CGIT found the penalty of dismissal to be harsh and disproportionate and modified the punishment to compulsory retirement.
The appellant as well as the respondent instituted writ petitions before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to challenge the order of the CGIT. The High Court affirmed the order of the CGIT. The High Court also directed the Tribunal to compute the consequential benefits conferred upon the respondent. The High Court directed the Tribunal to pass an order in accordance with Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
On 12 March 2021, the Supreme Court issued notice against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court while entertaining the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was incomprehensible. The Apex Court 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 before us in appeal detracts from the efficacy of the judicial process, the Supreme Court bench noted.
The Bench further observed, “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, the Apex Court noted.
The Supreme Court Bench directed, “courts and tribunals must also ensure that the version of the judgments and orders uploaded is accessible and signed using digital signatures. They should not be scanned versions of printed copies.”
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed its remand due to its incoherence and noted, “we have taken the opportunity to lay out the above discussion on judgment writing. Incoherent judgments have a serious impact upon the dignity of our institutions.”
In view of the incomprehensibility of the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 27 November 2020 in CWPs No 3597 of 2020 along with 4844 of 2020.
Comments