<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the judgement must be written with clarity, care and caution. Though the judges may be overburdened with the pending cases and the arrears, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity, it said.</p>.<p>"Unless the judgment is not written in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There are some judgements that eventually get overruled because of lack of clarity," a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah said.</p>.<p>The court said whenever a judgment is written, it should have clarity on facts, submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, discussion on law points, reasoning and the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portion of the order. </p>.<p>"The reasoning in the judgement should be intelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions should be precise and specific. Writing judgements is an art, though it involves skilful application of law and logic," the bench said. </p>.<p>The top court made these observations while disapproving Allahabad High Court's judgements granting bail to four convicts Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav in the murder case of Kripa Shankar Shukla in Ballia district in 1995.</p>.<p>It found "a total lack of clarity" in the High Court's judgement as to which part of the order was submission, which part was the finding or reasoning. Even the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor have not been noted, though a detailed affidavit was filed by the State opposing the bail applications.</p>.<p>Allowing a plea by Shakuntala Shukla, wife of the deceased, the court directed the four convicts to surrender, saying the High Court committed a grave error in releasing them on bail pending appeals against their conviction and sentence.</p>.<p>It pointed out the High Court ought to have considered the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation and conduct of the accused in giving threats to the witnesses during the trial and even thereafter. The High Court failed to note that the accused have undergone only eight months sentence against the life term imposed by the trial court. </p>.<p><strong>Check out the latest DH videos here: </strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the judgement must be written with clarity, care and caution. Though the judges may be overburdened with the pending cases and the arrears, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity, it said.</p>.<p>"Unless the judgment is not written in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There are some judgements that eventually get overruled because of lack of clarity," a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah said.</p>.<p>The court said whenever a judgment is written, it should have clarity on facts, submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, discussion on law points, reasoning and the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portion of the order. </p>.<p>"The reasoning in the judgement should be intelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions should be precise and specific. Writing judgements is an art, though it involves skilful application of law and logic," the bench said. </p>.<p>The top court made these observations while disapproving Allahabad High Court's judgements granting bail to four convicts Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav in the murder case of Kripa Shankar Shukla in Ballia district in 1995.</p>.<p>It found "a total lack of clarity" in the High Court's judgement as to which part of the order was submission, which part was the finding or reasoning. Even the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor have not been noted, though a detailed affidavit was filed by the State opposing the bail applications.</p>.<p>Allowing a plea by Shakuntala Shukla, wife of the deceased, the court directed the four convicts to surrender, saying the High Court committed a grave error in releasing them on bail pending appeals against their conviction and sentence.</p>.<p>It pointed out the High Court ought to have considered the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation and conduct of the accused in giving threats to the witnesses during the trial and even thereafter. The High Court failed to note that the accused have undergone only eight months sentence against the life term imposed by the trial court. </p>.<p><strong>Check out the latest DH videos here: </strong></p>
