Apex court slams Himachal HC for its ‘incomprehensible’ judgment

Apex court slams Himachal HC for its ‘incomprehensible’ judgment

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Shimla:14.03.2021 

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah expressed displeasure on Friday at the incomprehensible manner of writing of a Himachal Pradesh high court judgment. It was hearing a special leave petition arising out of an order passed by a division bench of that high court.

The apex court bench said it was constrained to observe that the language in the judgment of the high court was incomprehensible. It added that such orders of the high court as in the present case do a disservice to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to citizens.

The Supreme Court bench said judgments are intended to convey the reasoning and process of thought that lead to the final conclusion of the adjudicating forum. It said the purpose of writing a judgment is to communicate the basis of the decision not only to members of the bar, who appear in the case, and to others to whom it serves as a precedent, but, above all, to provide meaning to citizens who approach courts to pursue their remedies under the law.

It said that since the HC has affirmed the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), it has been able to arrive at an understanding of the basic facts from the order that was challenged before the HC.

“From the record of the court, more particularly the award of the CGIT, it emerges that though a serious charge of misconduct was held to be established against the respondent, it has been interfered with and the high court has dismissed the petition under Article 226,” it added.

The apex court observed in the order that the reasons set out in the judgment of the division bench of the HC dismissing the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution fill 18 pages but are incomprehensible.

Full report on www.toi.in

The purpose of writing a judgment is, above all, to provide meaning to citizens who approach courts to pursue their remedies under the law, the SC bench said