1. Home
2. Legal News
3. Use language understandable by a Layman: PIL in Supreme Court seeks use of plain language for law

Use language understandable by a Layman: PIL in Supreme Court seeks use of plain language for law

Dated: October 12, 2020

                                                                                                                                       - By Megha Bhatia

A petition was lodged with the Supreme Court recently, praying that all government laws, legislation, notices, communications that are of interest to the general public should be drawn up and issued using plain language.

In order to facilitate access to justice for laypersons, the petitioner also sought guidance from the Ministry of Union Law to make available, in easily understandable language, guides and handbooks on laws of general public interest and redressal of grievances.

The plea was raised by the petitioner’s counsel, Dr Subhash Vijayran, on the ground that “writing of most lawyers is: (a) wordy, (b) unclear, (c) pompous and (d) dull. We use eight words to say what can be said in two. We use arcane phrases to express commonplace ideas. Seeking to be precise, we become redundant. Seeking to be cautious, we become verbose. Our writing is teemed with legal jargon and legalese. And the story goes on”, said the plea.

The plea states, “It is the common man who is most ignorant of the system – in fact quite wary of it. Why? Because he neither understands the system nor the laws. Everything is so much complicated and confusing. The way laws are enacted, practiced and administered in our country violates the fundamental rights of the masses by denying them – Access to Justice. ‘Speedy Justice’ and ‘Legal Awareness’ are the two, out of the many, facets of Access to Justice.” 

Laws require public authorities to use plain language in several countries to improve access to programmes and services. If the public was not given access to justice  according to Articles 21 and 39A their fundamental right will be violated.

The petitioner says, emphasising the value of using plain words, “It avoids verbose, convoluted language and jargon. Using plain language in communications ultimately improves efficiency, because there is less ambiguity for the readers, and less time is taken for clarifications and explanations. This is a step toward Access to Justice.”

The petition states that due to poorly written & verbose drafts and ad-nauseam oral arguments, too much precious time, energy and resources of both the Court and lawyers/litigants are wasted and that there is a need to prioritise and use resources effectively.

The PIL argues that the legislature should enact precise and unambiguous laws, and in plain language. “A guide in plain English and in vernacular of the laws of general public interest should be issued by the Government - explaining the law and its application - in easy to understand language. Further, all rules, regulations, notifications, communications etc, drafted and issued by all branches of the Government - that are of general public interest - should be in plain language”, said the plea.

The petitioner also claimed that it was mandated that the standard of pleadings lodged at the Supreme Court should be of the highest quality.

“If this court is to be truly a court of the masses – and not court of a fortunate few – the era of never-ending oral arguments and verbose pleadings has to go.”

Dr Vijayran further prays for directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to introduce a mandatory subject of “Legal Writing in Plain English” in the three-year and five-year LL.B. courses at all law schools in India. 

He has also called for the direct imposition before the Supreme Court of a page cap for pleadings and a time limit for oral arguments. The plea alleges, “As a humble suggestion vis-à-vis oral arguments – for each side – time limits of 5-10 minutes for applications, 20 minutes for short cases, 30 minutes for cases of moderate length, and 40-60 minutes for long cases may be imposed. Only in exceptional cases of constitutional and public importance, should the time limit of oral arguments be relaxed beyond one hour...”

The matter is likely to be listed for hearing on October 15.