How Effective is the Formatting of the Judgement to the Readability and Clarity of the Content?

- Authored by Maitreya Kumar

In the previous few years in law school, I have had many opportunities to read several judgements of both domestic and international nature. This has allowed me to gather insight regarding the very aspect of the reading of the judgements, specifically by comparing the above stated two categories. This has raised an interesting point that while not directly connected to law itself, it greatly affects the legal field and therefore, should be analyzed with a legal eye. It is, in my opinion, far easier to read through even denser and far more complicated judgements from international courts than comparatively simpler judgements from domestic courts. There are subtle differences in the language even when comparing the English versions among the international and domestic judgments. This was a surprise to me as well. However, the answer, in my opinion was found in the simplest and the most unexpected places. While it may seem almost like a non-sequitur, the formatting of text is incredibly impactful in any piece, not only in how it breaks up the wall of text that would become incredibly overwhelming into digestible chunks, but also in how it breaks up the thought process of the author, and therefore the flow of the content itself.

In domestic judgements, even in the ones that are considered important and therefore, must be considered an integral study, the breakdown of the information presented by the content of the text itself is done rather poorly. Take for example, K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra[1], a decision which was integral to the very direction of the legal system of our state however, the case itself bears no subheadings, no divisions according to the issues, no clear subdivisions in facts and the opinions of the case. It is not that no flow exists within the text itself, the judges of the court have significant talent in creating this effect through their writing alone, still, there are certain lacunas present in reading through the entire text to find a specific point. While the numbered system can help with this. However, a numbered system without any additional indications is will not be of much aid for associating specific portions of the judgement. This means that even if you are previously aware of the judgement and have read it already, a revision still requires a complete reread. As such, it only contributes to a culture of requiring briefs for every case. The actual text of the case becomes something which is rarely read or understood. It becomes an incomprehensible wall of text, as it is impossible to distinguish one sentence from another. However, there is quite an easy solution, which requires minor effort on the part of the Courts and other Judicial Bodies.

This minor change can be spotted easily when reading any international case. A good example however, is any report from the Arbitration Tribunal under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Under this jurisdiction, all reports that are made are extremely detailed and very well organized. The facts and submissions made by either party are logged clearly, sections of law are clearly specified as well as precedents are highlighted for the convenience of the reader. Additionally, all matters and text are separated clearly along the lines of issues and how the Arbitration Tribunals are applying the law as they see it to the issue, i.e., clear separations in text being made in order to clarify the reasoning of the Committee. This is an incredible step forward, as it allows the reading of the text to become far easier, and allows for revision and checking of important points to occur at a far greater speed, allowing for ease of access purely in the form of textual structure. This can be seen in Timor Sea Conciliation (Timor-Leste v. Australia)[2], which is an incredibly complicated case dealing with matters of sovereignty and delimitation. The significant element of is the initial dispute over the jurisdiction of the court itself. Yet, it is significantly easier to read, simply because of the mundane changes in the form of formatting.

While this may seem like a small issue, it is an important matter to consider. A fair law should require one to be trained to be able to read and parse the text of a judgment that affects the way citizens spend their lives. If it is not possible to read and understand, it is impossible for them to live up to the standards and precedents introduced by such judgements. It is incredibly important that these judgements are understandable by all those who read them. It is to be assured that it is possible for any such reader to be able to navigate to whatever piece of information that they are looking for, in an extension of the principle of fair law. As such, it is important for the legal edification and education of all citizens, something that is the sign of a mature state, to actually structure and format the judgements in a tighter manner. It is something that will allow our legal system to mature and take a more eclectic tone, thus allowing far more diverse and well-read perspectives from different walks of life to contribute to jurisprudence, and thus allowing for effectiveness in the governance of the nation.

References:

[1] K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605. [2] Dai Tamada, The Timor Sea Conciliation: The Unique Mechanism of Dispute Settlement 31(1) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 321, 321-344 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa025.