<p>Supreme Court Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah on Friday reprimanded the way judgements are being written in the High Courts with Justice Shah stating that a judgement must be as simple as it can be so that everyone can understand and is not supposed to be a thesis. Justice Shah apparently had to use a balm to get over the complex reading.</p>.<p>The remark came while the two judges were hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) related to an order passed by a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 which had come up after an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The High Court had confirmed the order of the CGIT as regards the charge of misconduct against an employee, said a <em>LiveLaw</em> <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-incomprehensible-manner-judgments-of-high-courts-mr-shah-171082?infinitescroll=1" target="_blank">report</a>.</p>.<p>"I did not understand anything. There are long, long sentences. Then, there is an odd comma showing up anywhere After reading, I did not understand anything. I started doubting my own understanding!" the report quoted Justice Shah as saying. "I had to use Tiger balm," Justice Shah added.</p>.<p>Justice Chandrachud, equally appalled, said, "I sat down to read it at 10:10 am. It was 10:55 by the time I completed! I was like, 'Can you imagine this?' Finally, I had to look for the award of the CGIT itself. Oh, my God! I am telling you, this is unbelievable!"</p>.<p>"Reading the order of the division bench of November 27, 2020, we note that the reasons recorded by the High Court in the long judgement of 18 pages are not comprehensible. The kind of reasoning and language employed is inexplicable," the bench said.</p>.<p>Calling it a disservice to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to all, Justice Chandrachud said, "Judgments must be understandable not only to the members of the bar who have appeared in the matter or to those for whom they hold value as a precedent but must also have meaning to the general litigants who have to approach the courts for the enforcement of their rights."<br /> </p>
<p>Supreme Court Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah on Friday reprimanded the way judgements are being written in the High Courts with Justice Shah stating that a judgement must be as simple as it can be so that everyone can understand and is not supposed to be a thesis. Justice Shah apparently had to use a balm to get over the complex reading.</p>.<p>The remark came while the two judges were hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) related to an order passed by a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 which had come up after an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The High Court had confirmed the order of the CGIT as regards the charge of misconduct against an employee, said a <em>LiveLaw</em> <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-incomprehensible-manner-judgments-of-high-courts-mr-shah-171082?infinitescroll=1" target="_blank">report</a>.</p>.<p>"I did not understand anything. There are long, long sentences. Then, there is an odd comma showing up anywhere After reading, I did not understand anything. I started doubting my own understanding!" the report quoted Justice Shah as saying. "I had to use Tiger balm," Justice Shah added.</p>.<p>Justice Chandrachud, equally appalled, said, "I sat down to read it at 10:10 am. It was 10:55 by the time I completed! I was like, 'Can you imagine this?' Finally, I had to look for the award of the CGIT itself. Oh, my God! I am telling you, this is unbelievable!"</p>.<p>"Reading the order of the division bench of November 27, 2020, we note that the reasons recorded by the High Court in the long judgement of 18 pages are not comprehensible. The kind of reasoning and language employed is inexplicable," the bench said.</p>.<p>Calling it a disservice to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to all, Justice Chandrachud said, "Judgments must be understandable not only to the members of the bar who have appeared in the matter or to those for whom they hold value as a precedent but must also have meaning to the general litigants who have to approach the courts for the enforcement of their rights."<br /> </p>