Rudy Giuliani rose into prominence by the way he handled 9/11 as the Mayor of New York, later went on to become the Time Magazine Person of the Year and also wrote a book on Leadership out of the same journey. As he says his job as an Attorney gave him immense capabilities of summation and that proved to be a skill for his transition into an author. The lawyers can summarize, create a failsafe narrative, use the available evidence, and battle it out in the court of law. Language is as much a tool of the lawyer, as his knowledge of law. Suffice to say all good lawyers have great drafting skills and are more well-known for their gift of the gab.
Might be the knowledge of law is sharpened by the comprehension and ease of language; reading, writing and speaking, in the same progression. It has been hard for the litigants to understand the judicial orders and verdicts and generally the lawyer takes upon himself to make him understand in language he would understand. It has for long been believed that it was comprehension issue at the reader’s end and there could barely be a flaw in the verdict. There is no denying the fact that taking care of a process, evidence, evaluation of it, the necessary cross connects, the citation, ruling, finally the cogent narrative as a verdict, is not easy. This the final document, the output of the trial, that should stand the test of everything.
While language has gone by the wayside, in a large number of professions, to their peril, judicial administration is pretty much dependent on it. Documentation is the key to the judicial process. The language of law / its technicalities within and keeping it easy to understand seems to be the recipe of a judgement. Justice D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah expressed their concern on some judgements written by High Court judges. They said it was very difficult to appreciate what the judge wants to convey. They observed that a verdict delivered by Allahabad High Court, granting bail to five life convicts, lacked clarity. It was unfortunate they said, that the SC bench had to explain how judgements should be written.
The main elements of a judgement would be; it being coherent, systematic and logically organized. ”It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles.” Judgements, it was emphasized, should be written with care and caution. The judgement reflects the individuality of the judge. ”All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded.”* The bench said, ”Writing judgements is an art (and) involves skillful application of law and logic.” Quality cannot be compromised for quantity was yet another observation. Legal expertise, outstanding reasoning and complete command over the professional language holds the key.
SC REMARKS HAVE BEEN A JUDGEMENT ON JUDGEMENTS FOR A PROACTIVE CHANGE.