‘Garbage can’t be thrown in SC’: Top court appeals for diligence in legal drafting

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the high standards of professionalism and precision expected in legal drafting, especially at the apex court level, as it admonished a lawyer for submitting a poorly drafted petition riddled with factual errors and inconsistencies.

“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 are you filing? Can any garbage be thrown in the Supreme Court?” a vacation bench of justices Rajesh Bindal and PB Varale asked a counsel arguing in a bail matter.

The bench’s frustration was palpable as it scrutinised the petition, which was marred by factual inaccuracies, spelling mistakes, and apparent copying from another case. The petition, ostensibly seeking regular bail for the petitioner, referenced anticipatory bail instead.

“We are reading out a part of your petition? 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 court asked the lawyer, who replied that the plea was for a regular bail in a cheating case.

“How do you expect your understand anything about your petition? There is no coherence,” said the bench, adding the petition has “no head or tail”.

The bench’s sharp critique extended to the overall quality of the drafting, emphasising that such sloppiness is unacceptable in any legal setting, let alone the Supreme Court.

“How can any court understand anything when a petition is filed like this? We are commenting on the quality of the drafting,” it observed.

Adding to the courtroom drama, the lawyer at the receiving end of the criticism initially responded with “oblige” before quickly correcting himself to “apologise”.

“I oblige, my lords,” he said, prompting the bench to respond that if he is obliged at the criticism, the court is also “obliged” to dismiss the petition. The lawyer then quickly corrected himself. “I meant ‘I apologise’. I am sorry,” he said.

The court, maintaining its stern stance, refused to entertain the petition in its current state, sending a clear message about the standards of professionalism required in legal submissions.

The incident was another reminder to legal practitioners of the importance of meticulous preparation and the need to uphold the highest standards of legal drafting before the Supreme Court.

Justice BR Gavai, among the Supreme Court judges, has been particularly vigilant about the quality and appropriateness of pleadings. In November 2022, a bench led by justice Gavai issued a show-cause notice of contempt to an advocate on record (AoR), who signed a petition that bore snide remarks against a high court and imputed bias on the judges there. The judge highlighted a 1955 judgment of the top court in MY Shareef and Another Vs The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors, which cautioned the lawyers against putting their stamps on pleadings without carefully going through them. The judgment held that even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty of committing contempt of the court.