Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India has endeavored to enlist what all should be kept in mind while writing a judgment. While doing so, it has pointed out that a judgment must be in simple language and should not be verbose.

"Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment. We must remember that judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature", a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has said.

It has been further pointed out a judgment of the Court cannot contain the Judge's personal opinions on various subjects.

"Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The Judge has to decide a case and not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material...", top court adds.

The division bench has further described when a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, the judgment must contain

(i) a concise statement of the facts of the case,
(ii) the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, if any,
(iii) the submissions made by the parties,
(iv) the analysis based on the reappreciation of evidence, and
(v) the reasons for either confirming the guilt of the accused or for acquitting the accused.

"The ultimate object of writing a judgment is to ensure that the parties before the Court know why the case is decided in their favour or against them. Therefore, judgment must be in a simple language. The conclusions recorded by the Court in the judgment on legal or factual issues must be supported by cogent reasons....", it has been held.

These observations have been made by the apex court while setting aside the Calcutta High Court's order reminding female adolescents of their duty to protect their right to integrity of their body.

While hearing the case, SC had also said that such observations sent a wrong signal.

Issue before the High Court was about the legality and validity of the judgment and order of September 19th/20th September, 2022, by which the appellant before it was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan asked as to what principles the High Court was applying under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code while making such observations.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had said that such observations were prima facie completely in violation of the rights of the adolescents guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Notably, the top court took up the matter suo motu as 'In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent', wherein a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said, "Prima facie, we are of the view that while writing a judgment in such appeal, the Judges are not expected to express their personal views. They are not expected to preach."

Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent