3. Legal jargon - Judges / Advocates love to continue

Legal terms used Plain meaning

‘res-judicata’ The case been already decided
‘in limni’ At the outset
‘ad curiam ‘ At the court
‘res derelicta’ or Abandoned or not yet decided
‘res integra ‘
‘puisne’ Subordinate
‘Plaintiff’ Claimant
‘Writ’ Claim form
‘In camera’ In private
‘Inter partes’ With notice
‘ex parte ‘ Without notice
‘Sub judice’ Pending litigation

Judges are in love with these words or phrases which, I suppose, are Latin. It is an attitude of ‘ we know, you don’t.’ Given below is extract of a Supreme Court judgment delivered some time back.

“ ………Because exordiums are opprobrium’s and socio-economic apercus are anathemas for some judicial psyches, and I should have, for that reason, abandoned my habitual deviance from the orthodox norm idealized by some that judicial judgment shall be a dry statement of facts, drier presentation of law and logomachies and driest at least communicating to the law abiding community, which is the Court’s constituency, the glow of life-giving principles rooted in social sciences and translated into juristic rules which legitimate our institution functionally…….”

Should one say more.

Simply put, judges need to use plain understandable English in their judgments.. But the fact is they are loathe to do it. Same is the case with Advocates. In the heart of hearts they want to continue with this system, though openly they would deride. Clients have to be impressed and if the clients understanding the meaning of these terms, then the importance of Advocates would be a shade lower.

It is the human tendency to worship on one hand and cling on the other hand power, pelf and authoritative pronouncements. This is the case universally. For example, a rail ticket collector has the uniform of black coat, black tie and white trousers. In the hot humid weather most part and time this country go through, this is the most unsuited dress. Yet they are loathe to adorn more suitable dress with a pin indicating that they are ticket collectors. The dress is a symbol of authority for him. So also for the judges and advocates.

It is not that changes in these matters are controversial or cannot effected without upsetting the apple cart. This does not require recommendations of the Law Commission.

In many of the developed countries, court structure is being simplified and changes are being made to take into account the changes that have happened outside. The dress of judges and advocates have been changed to the normal dress people wear. But not in India. The British Raj persists. ‘We are more loyal to the King’ syndrome persists.

Of course there is the more serious matter of undue delay, running to often five to ten years in disposing cases. Then again for those who are not directly involved, the sheer volume of paper work would be daunting.