the art of writing Can Impact Case Fate :the judges of the Supreme Court share ideas with new registered defenders “
Last Updated on March 7, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court of India has outlined key considerations to write a sentence, emphasizing that it must be written in a clear and direct language, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.
“Briefness is the distinctive seal of the quality trial. We must remember that the trial is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature,” said a Bench of Judges Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
In addition, it has been emphasized that the judgment of a court should not include the judge’s personal opinions on various issues.
The Division Bench has described even more than when a court addresses an appeal against a conviction, the sentence must include:
(i) a concise summary of the facts of the case,
(ii) a general description of the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense,
(iii) the arguments presented by the parties,
(iv) an analysis based on the re -report of evidence, and
(v) The justification for maintaining the conviction or absorbing the accused.
“Similarly, the Court cannot exercise the advice jurisdiction by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The judge has to decide a case and not preach. The sentence cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material …”, adds the Superior Court.
“The ultimate goal of writing a sentence is to ensure that the parties before the court know why the case is decided in their favor or against them. Therefore, the trial must be in a simple language. The conclusions recorded by the court in the judgment on legal or objective matters must be backed by convincing reasons …”, has remained.
The Supreme Court of India, while leaving aside the order of the Superior Court of Calcutta, criticized the Superior Court for their comments reminding the adolescents of their duty to protect their body integrity. The Apex court said such observations sent a harmful message.
The case involved the legality and validity of a sentence and order of September 19 and 20, 2022, which condemned the appellant under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Law of Protection of Children of Sexual Crimes, 2012 (Act Pocso). Judges Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the principles applied by the Superior Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when making such comments.
The Supreme Court, which occupied the subject Suo Motu Bajo ‘in Re: Right to the privacy of adolescence’, observed that the comments of the Superior Court were cousin facie in violation of the rights of adolescents under article 21 of the Constitution. Judges ABHAY S. OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL emphasized that judges must refrain from expressing points of view or preaching personal while writing judgments in such appeals.
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent
