Inconsistent decisions have grave impact on dignity of judicial institutions: SC | India News – Times of India

Inconsistent decisions have serious impact on dignity of judicial institutions: SC. (Photo Credits: Reuters)

New Delhi: Supreme court It has observed that inconsistent judgments have serious implications for the dignity of judicial institutions and suggested guidelines based on the formula to be followed by Constitutional Courts while writing judgments. peak court Said that in order to ensure accessibility of judgments, especially for persons with disabilities, all judicial institutions should endeavor that the judgments and orders being published by them should not be unduly watermarked as they may ultimately be used for persons with visual impairment. make documents inaccessible. Use a screen reader to access them.
a bench of justices D Y Chandrachud and like Boywho canceled the order of Himachal Pradesh High Court On the grounds that it was incomprehensible, said that “the purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confuse the reader behind a veneer of complex language”.
The bench ruled on an appeal on August 16 state Bank of India and other in case arising out of disciplinary action against an employee.
It said, “While it is unfortunate that we had to quash the impugned judgment and its remand was directed due to its inconsistency, we have taken this opportunity to discuss the writing of the judgment. Inconsistent judgments have serious implications for the dignity of ours. Institute”.
The top court said that though it has laid down some broad guidelines, individual judges may have different ways of writing judgments and differ in their style of expression.
“The expression of the judge is the disclosure of the gaps of the mind. Though the gaps of the mind may be infallible, the logic in judgment may not. Although judges may have their own style of writing judgments, they must ensure clarity in these styles. write”, it said in the judgment uploaded on the apex court’s website on Wednesday.
It said that decision writing is a layered exercise and in one layer, a judgment addresses the concerns and arguments of the parties in a forensic competition while in the second layer, a decision addresses the stakeholders beyond the conflict.
“It speaks to those in society who are affected by the discourse. In a layered formulation of analysis, a judgment speaks to the present and the future. Whether or not the author of a judgment is the imagination, the written product lives on for the future.” , representing another incremental step in the social dialogue”, the bench said.
It said that if a decision does not measure up, it can be criticized and criticized and behind the layers of reason lies the judge’s view on the values ​​that a just society must imbibe and defend.
“In a constitutional framework, these should be based on values” Constitution, The reason, which a judge presents, provides an insight – a window into the work of the court in accepting these values ​​as an integral part of judicial work”, it said.
The top court said that many judgments settle complex questions of law and fact and this court has been providing titles and sub-headings to assist the reader in providing a structured sequence.
“On a note of accessibility, there is a need to emphasize the importance of making judgments accessible to persons from all sections of the society, especially persons with disabilities. All judicial institutions should ensure that the judgments being published by them and The orders are not improperly placed watermarks as they make documents inaccessible to those who are visually impaired, who access them using screen readers”, it said.
The top court said that courts and tribunals should 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 practice of printing and scanning documents is a wasteful and time-consuming process that serves no purpose. This practice should be eliminated from the litigation process Because this also tends to make the document a process inaccessible to a whole gamut of citizens”, it added.
The bench suggested that with reference to the composition of the judgments, it would be beneficial for the courts to structure them in such a way that “the issue, rule, application and conclusion“(IRACs) are easily identifiable.
“The well-known ‘IRAC’ methodology commonly used for analyzing cases and structuring submissions, when supplemented by recording facts and submissions can also benefit judgments”, it said.
“‘Issue’ refers to the question of law that a court is deciding. A court may deal with multiple issues in a single decision. The identification of these issues clearly helps in structuring the decision and for the reader. Provides clarity on the specific issue of law. The decision is being taken in a particular section of the law”, it said.
Elaborating on the law, the apex court said that “rule” refers to that part of the judgment which eschews the submission of the counsel on the principle of applicable law and the issue identified.
“This rule applies to the facts of the case in which the issue has arisen. The analysis recording the court’s argument forms the “Application” section.
The top court said that in the end, it is always useful for the court to summarize the specific facts as well as the “findings” based on the judgment as well as the determination of the application of the rule on the issue.

Follow us on Social Media

FacebookTwitterinstagramKu APPyoutube