“Courts becoming a ‘competing arena’ of who gets to argue for a longer Time”: Supreme Court emphasises on importance of Succinct written Synopsis

The Supreme Court today while delivering its judgement on refusing to quash issuance of summons by Delhi Assembly To Facebook’s MD for probing into Delhi Riots cases(s) intended to bring to notice the importance of succinctly framed written synopsis in advance and the same being followed too by adding a postscript in its judgement to start a discussion among legal fraternity.

Bench of Justice SK Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrikesh Roy while emphasising on the need for the advocates to bring clarity in thought process on what is to be addressed remarked, 

“The contribution to the development of law can be nurtured by comprehensible precedent. There may be times when the complexity of matters gives rise to complex opinions. But we find that judgments are becoming more complex and verbose only on account of the large number of precedents cited and the necessity to deal with them and not merely refer to them as is done in other countries.”

Further pointing out the need to adopt the Wren and Martin principles of precis writing, the Court also said that Counsel must be clear on the contours of their submissions from the very inception of the arguments. 

“Much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of time period for oral submissions is an aspect which must be brought into force. We really doubt whether any judicial forum anywhere in the world would allow such time periods to be taken for oral submissions and these be further supplemented by written synopsis thereafter. Instead of restricting oral arguments it has become a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time,” Court added.

“We are weighed down by judicial precedent,” the Court said.

While drawing attention on the pendency of Supreme Court as on 01.05.2021 which is 67,898 cases, the Court said, “Delay in judicial proceedings has been the bane of our country and there cannot be a refusal to part ways from old practices especially when they have outlived their purpose. It is the litigants who bear the costs of our complex and prolonged adjudicatory process. We are conscious of the equal responsibility of this side of the bench – it is the need of the hour to write clear and short judgments which the litigant can understand.”  

Putting forth a view that if the proposition of law is not doubted by the Court there is no need for a precedent unless asked for, the Court also said, “If a question is raised about a legal proposition, the judgment must be relatable to that proposition – and not multiple judgments.”

Reference was also made to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which recognises the right of fair trial and public hearing and further qualifies it inter alia to be completed “within a reasonable time”.

“The US Supreme Court is more restrictive in its time frame – not that UK Courts are far behind. The norms and the traditions take care of the requirement of restrictive time frames to address submissions; which are preceded by the contours of arguments given in the written synopsis and the material sought to be relied upon,” Court remarked. 

Case Title: Ajit Mohan and Ors v. Legislative Assembly National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors| WP(C) No 1088| 2020