Supreme Court Criticizes Substandard Legal Drafting in Bail Petition

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the critical importance of professionalism and precision in legal drafting, particularly at the highest judicial level. The admonishment came as a vacation bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice PB Varale, criticized a lawyer for submitting a poorly drafted petition laden with factual errors and inconsistencies.

Court’s Critique

During the hearing, the bench’s frustration was evident as it examined the petition, which was marred by numerous errors, including factual inaccuracies, spelling mistakes, and apparent copying from another case. The petition, which ostensibly sought regular bail for the petitioner, mistakenly referenced anticipatory bail.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, addressing the counsel, remarked, “Did anyone bother to read the petition before it was filed in this court? Did you, as an arguing and drafting counsel, even check what you are filing? Can any garbage be thrown in the Supreme Court?”

The bench highlighted specific issues, reading aloud parts of the petition to underscore its lack of coherence. “You have written ‘bound’ as ‘bond’. Then you say you are appealing against the anticipatory bail. Is your petition against the rejection of an anticipatory bail?” The lawyer clarified that the plea was for regular bail in a cheating case.

Professionalism in Legal Drafting

The bench’s critique extended to the overall quality of the petition, stating, “How can any court understand anything when a petition is filed like this? We are commenting on the quality of the drafting. There is no coherence; the petition has no head or tail.”

Adding to the drama, the lawyer initially responded with “oblige” before quickly correcting himself to “apologise.” This slip further illustrated the bench’s point about the need for meticulousness and clarity in legal submissions. The court’s firm stance led to the refusal to entertain the petition in its current state, underscoring the necessity for high standards in legal drafting.

Previous Incidents

This incident serves as a reminder to legal practitioners about the importance of preparation and maintaining the highest standards in legal submissions to the Supreme Court. Justice BR Gavai has previously highlighted the need for appropriate pleadings. In November 2022, a bench led by Justice Gavai issued a show-cause notice for contempt to an advocate on record (AoR) who signed a petition containing derogatory remarks against a High Court and imputing bias on the judges there.

Justice Gavai referred to a 1955 judgment in MY Shareef and Another Vs The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors, which cautioned lawyers against endorsing pleadings without thoroughly reviewing them. The judgment held that even a lawyer who subscribes to such derogatory and contemptuous statements is guilty of committing contempt of court.

Conclusion

This recent admonishment by the Supreme Court is a stark reminder of the high standards of professionalism and precision expected in legal drafting. Legal practitioners must ensure that their submissions are meticulously prepared and devoid of errors to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

For ongoing updates and detailed coverage of legal developments, business news, and real-time updates on global trade and geopolitics, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this article informative, please share it with others interested in global economic and political issues.