The Supreme Court has asked Trial Court Judges to avoid uploading scanned images of judgements but rather sign them digitally.
The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna observed that judgments should be accessible to persons from all sections of society including persons with disability and therefore scanned version and not printed copies should be available.
The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal against a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court wherein it upheld an order of Central Government Industrial Tribunal. It found the judgement to be 'incomprehensible'.
"This Court in 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."
The Court opined thatn 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 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."
The Court stressed that readability of the judgments enhances confidence in judiciary.
"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."
The Court asserted that it is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible.
"While judges may have their own style of judgment writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles - Incoherent judgments have a serious impact upon the dignity of our institutions - "IRAC‟ method of judgment writing - The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision."
In background of above, the Court issued the follwoing guidelines:
-All judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them.
-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 practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments