 have a bird eye view and like a hawk, you can catch the best things forward to be shown to the bench and how you have to cite it, whether you will cite it in your pleadings and your planes and your petitions. And how do you bring the crux of that judgment to be shown to the bench? These are certain aspects. Therein we have requested Dr. Aditya Sundi, a senior advocate from Karnataka High Court and a well-reputed name, not only as a lawyer, but if you go to the YouTube, you will find a lot of sessions on his, to the aspect wherein we see, wherein he takes his sessions to the effect. How you can make a mark as a first-generation lawyer, how you can be a good lawyer, how you can be a litigation lawyer, and so on and on. Therefore, at the first brush, the lawyers who are at, I would say, for the purposes of 30s and on, they feel that they know the judgments, but what is the way forward? And for a young lawyer, it is as to how the judgment can be cited. And initially, here's the more challenging part is to the effect that the judgment sometimes is more voluminous than the petition itself. And it is a challenge to understand the judgment, to show it to the bench at the right time, because it's a, you have to reaction time just like it is a very less time for a reaction when the judge asks you, you have to straight away take to the relevant pair and the judgment. I could say that you have to Google it around in the same time and the response time is all the same to show it to the bench to create a mark. Without taking much time, we are happy that the participants are just logging in and there couldn't be a better speaker with us, a product from NLS and Bishop Cotton who take things to understand. And we will also ask him, like a lot of people say that as to whether English would be a relevant part or the communication skills would become a relevant part for the purposes of addressing in the court, outside the court, because first brush is when you talk to your client where you first create the impression, the next impression before the bench comes subsequently. This would be a question which normally in my office also people do ask over to you, sir. It's a pleasure connecting with you on the virtual platform. Thank you, Sri Vikas for that introduction and for the invitation to speak to our advocate friends on a topic that I think is not given enough attention to be honest, the art of reading and citing judgments before the court. I first want to begin by saying that sometimes there is an over dependency on judgments. I have noticed that. And I have tried to inculcate a practice in myself and in my juniors to not have that dependency as far as possible. I believe that the beauty of the law in many ways is to research organically, to first go to a bear act. Many times we find an answer to the question that we are seeking in the bear text of the law. It can be a section, it can be a proviso, it can be a subordinate rule, it can be an article in the constitution. And many times we are surprised to find that situations which you thought were not anticipated or are new have in fact been considered and foreseen by the legislature at the time of enacting a legislation. Therefore, this tendency first and foremost to straight away rush to judgments, to try and look at what courts have said on a point of law, I think creates an unhealthy dependency on case law. And I would like to begin by placing this word of caution that I think better research and better understanding of the law comes from reading the bear text. It's really in cases of ambiguity that you are required to revert to a judgment to convince the court. After all, first principles are something that you can take for granted. And therefore, in my opinion, judgments are to be a springboard for your submission, not a crutch. You ought not to rely upon them or depend upon them to see you through, but in fact, to springboard your submission and try and take your submissions higher to a higher plane. And only I believe in cases where there is some ambiguity in the situation. You see, if you're able to read the bear text and convince the court, what better proposition do you need? And I've seen that many courts are receptive to that, that if the answer is clear in the section, there is no ambiguity. There is no divergence of interpretation. Then a judgment in fact becomes unnecessary. And we must realize that courts are working under pressure of time. So cite judgments only when you need to. And please make it an effort on your part to first rely on your own understanding of the law. You know, I have discovered over these years the great pleasure of trying to develop an argument first and then test it with judgments. What I find personally, it has done. I feel enriched by that over these years is that you first come up with your own interpretation of a position of law that fits into the facts of your case. Then you check whether a court has taken that view or not. And when you find that courts have taken the view that you have prima facie come up with without knowing the law on the point, without knowing the case law on the point, then it gives you a certain confidence and validation that your reading of the law in an original sense is sound. That then becomes a habit. You start to look at a proposition of law originally. You look at it as a proposition of your own. And that gives you the confidence to even argue it as a proposition of your own. You see, you may have seen in many cases counsel straight away citing judgments. Somewhere, I think that discloses a slight lack of confidence in their own reading or understanding of the law. Now, if you're able to stand your ground in court and make a submission of your own understanding of the law, I would believe that the court would see you as a good counsel and would acknowledge you for your original understanding of a proposition. Yes, of course, if the court asks you, is there a legal view on it? Is there a precedent on it? That is when you go to case law. Of course, if the case law is against you or takes a view contrary to what you're espousing, the new inferences have to cite that position before the court. And I will dwell on that a little later. But this habit of working bottom up, of starting with the bare text, of identifying the legal issues, of developing that argument, and then corroborating it with case law, I think is the approach that I would like to commend to you when it comes to the matter of citing judgments in court. Otherwise, what it does is, it makes you depend almost entirely on judgments. And the moment your opponent distinguishes a judgment or the court distinguishes a judgment, you are on thin ice because you're really not able to stand your ground and argue a proposition which is your own. Whereas in the other hand, if the proposition is your own and you have developed it, you may actually go beyond what judgments say. You don't always find judgments that answer a point completely. Sometimes you may think of aspects that have not been argued in a case. You may think of consequential submissions that were not made or do not arise from the judgment on hand. And what that does is, I believe, gives you an intellect and an acumen of the law which will stand you on good stead. So that is my first and foremost submission to make on this topic. The next thing I want to say to you which is something that Fali Nariman famously said in his book is that counsel should avoid case law diarrhea. What he meant by that is this tendency to cite 50, 60 judgments when you barely need even one. And I strongly believe in that approach. What a telling remark it is case law diarrhea as if you can't stop yourself in court and we see that sometimes. As I said, a judgment is firstly needed only on a matter of ambiguity. If the court is deciding a question of law where there is no precedent or needs your assistance on that, then I think the need to revert to judgments arises. But you find sometimes case law being cited in court for no rhyme or reason, on first principles. Rit petition is not maintainable on a contractual matter. Rit should not be entertained if there is an alternative remedy. No Rit lies against an authority who is not state or a public authority within the meaning of Pro 26. I think these are all well-settled principles. You would think that the judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court that you are arguing before are well-versed with it. So also in the trial court, you're arguing an order 39 injunction. Do you need to cite case law saying that there are three ingredients that the court must look at in injunction, prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience? Would you not assume that a district judge is aware of those principles? And this I find, again, I think is an avoidable practice, this tendency to cite voluminous case law. Okay, fine. I mean, if you do want to support your proposition, maybe one judgment, if needed, can be cited on this. But the principles are what matter. And you have to assume that the court is aware of those principles. There could be a situation where there is a difference of opinion between you and a court on what that first principle is or in some case, maybe that first principle is required to be driven home for whatever reason. Yes, in those cases, maybe one judgment, but that one judgment, again, should not be the first judgment that a search engine gives you. Now, I belong to an old school style of research, which is to pull out journals, which mostly my juniors do for me, but pull out journals, read journals, not mechanically rely upon software engines. On our days on Google, I'm told research takes place, rather frightening thought. The whole idea is to sift through those judgments. Even if you have, say, six or seven judgments on a point, then it becomes your duty as a counsel to find what is the best judgment. Now, what is the best judgment? The best judgment could be the best in more than one sense. It could be the best judgment because it comes closest on the facts to your case. You're lucky if you find those. Or the best judgment may be the best reasoned judgment. You see, there are some cases where law may be referred to in passing, either as orbiter or as a casual reference altogether. That's hardly a judgment. Of course, orbiter of the Supreme Court also can be binding in the absence of any categorical pronouncement on the subject, but generally speaking, you ought to go to a judgment where the ratio is crystal clear. Now, what is the ratio? You see, this is the point. Your ability to find the ratio of a judgment is directly correlated to how much hard work you put in on the research of a case. And by that, I mean not hard work simply in terms of downloading judgments and so on, but in terms of applying your mind and analyzing case law, that has to be your effort. The more you do that, the sharper you become. I remember my senior used to tell me when there was a pile of SCC journals next on my desk, he used to ask me if I'm planning to build a house because it looked like I was building walls around myself. But those 20, 30, 40 journals that surround you, when you read each of them, you sift through them, you find firstly that your mind becomes sharper, your mind becomes broader because you will find more than one principle laid down. You may be looking for a principle in a tax issue on point X as to whether a particular service is amenable to service charge, for example, or service tax. But you may in the process find that judgment also lays down a principle with regard to, say, constitutional validity of a provision or the legislative competence or the way an administrative tax authority ought to deal with a proceeding or whether appeal lies or does not lie and that will stay with you subconsciously. So there you become sharper. But most importantly, that exercise of reading and over-reading judgments en masse helps you arrive at the ratio of the judgment. And look, that is what is the crux of the matter. That when you cite a judgment, cite it for its ratio. Don't cite it for a passing reference. Don't cite it simply because it says something that suits you. Don't cite it because it's a popularly cited. Cite it because it has a certain ratio or an essence to it, which fits in with the proposition that you're canvassing before the court. And what is that ratio? The ratio is the pulse of the case. The ratio is determined essentially from the question that the court decides. Now, if you're lucky, the judgment itself will tell you what is the question. And many good judgments do that. That judgment set out the points for determination and then proceed to answer them. Once that happens to a large extent, your job is made easier because you then know what exactly the court is dealing with and what it has said in consequence. But you may also find judgments which are not so clear. You may find a judgment where the ratio is to be sifted out from different paragraphs. Sometimes the ratio may be hidden away somewhere in the middle of the body. It may not be crystal clear at the end, but then that onus is on us as a counsel to read the judgment and try and understand where the central question arose. Now, if the question is not formulated, it is for us as counsel to formulate that question. How do you do that? You do that basis the facts. If you see many times I've also seen this tendency in court that counsel will cite a judgment without taking the court through the basic facts and the question that arose. Once you do that, that judgment is very easily distinguishable. In fact, I have seen judges get irritated with that. They ask the counsel, you first tell us what were the facts there. You tell us what was the question that arose. That does not mean you have to give every all-insundry facts. Then you might as well read the whole judgment. That again is an onus on us to filter. And you will find usually in the first two or three paragraphs of any judgment the basic facts in dispute that will help you correlate. Was it a case of land acquisition? Was there a section four notification or not? Was it an arbitration dispute where there was a reference made or not? Was it a pre-amendment dispute or not, et cetera, et cetera? And that process, friends, I think becomes crucially important in reducing dependency on judgments and also in playing the role of assisting the court by citing the appropriate judgment before it. Please don't make this mistake of filing a compilation of 30 judgments, 40 judgments unless it is absolutely needed. Yes, if you're amicus curiae in a matter, it's a vexed point of law. It is your duty to bring every judgment on the point before the court. But 99% of the cases may not require that. They may require no judgment or they may require one judgment. And that is where your role in finding out whether a judgment is needed or not and which judgment is required to be cited becomes extremely important. And that is where the reading of a judgment arriving at its ratio and culling out its findings is really the process of research that I would commend to you while talking to you about this topic. It is not my place as an advocate to say what a good judgment should be like, but I would just like to share my experience on what I feel have been the attributes of good judgments which help us as counsel also in our research. And I feel that some of the best judgments are those that are pithy. They are brief in a sense. By brief, I don't mean they have to be short. Some disputes are so complex that the judgment cannot be short. But at the same time, if you look at some of the judgments in the 60s and so on, constitution meant judgments, you look at English judgments, for example, you find that even complex issues are dealt with in three pages or four pages without compromising the quality of the judgment. And that I think is a great skill on the part of the bench also to be able to contain the judgments. And this is something, the Supreme Court has also observed by looking at both sides of the practice. Recently, the Supreme Court justice calls Ben said that there has to be a filter now on how much counsel can argue. Because if counsels keep arguing ad nauseam and filing compilations, running into hundreds and thousands of pages, then the court becomes obliged to deal with it. You can't find fault with the court then if the judgment is lengthy. So that onus is on us. Equally, judgments that are brief, judgments that are precise. You know, I think of Justice Ravindran's judgments, for example. You pick up any judgment of Justice Ravindran's, whether it's from the Karnataka High Court or from the Supreme Court. You'll find this very pleasant format to the judgment, which is to crystallize what are the questions that the court is answering. And then to answer them, whatever the reasoning may be, especially if it's the Supreme Court 141, it's binding. But that reasoning ultimately culminates in one paragraph of what the conclusion of the court is. And that makes your job very easier. Because as well as the job of the court to read and understand the precise ratio so that there is no ambiguity. You see, a lot of time is spent in court in deciphering what the actual ratio of a judgment was. And that can be avoided in cases where the courts themselves are crystal clear. And that also comes from clarity in addressing not only the issue that will arise, but the consequential outfalls of fallout of deciding that question. You see, for example, if you take some judgments, there was a judgment of Justice Ravindran that I had cited and is cited regularly on the question of when matters can be referred to a full bench, when a single judge is bound to follow a division bench, what is per incurium? Which is actually an issue directly related to the topic today. You don't cite judgments that are per incurium or bad law, judgments that have been overruled, judgments that don't take notice of a statutory provision, judgments that ignore earlier binding judgments. These are all complicated issues when it comes to case law. What do you do when you have to dissenting differing judgments in which the latter does not acknowledge the former? It's not an easy question. The view is that in the high courts, normally it's the older judgment that prevails. In the Supreme Court, it's the later judgment that prevails. Yes, if you're lucky, the later judgment would have distinguished the previous one, but sometimes that does not happen. Just today I was preparing a submission to be made as Amicus Curie in a matter before the full bench of the High Court of Karnataka, where there are differing division bench judgments on the same point, and therefore the matter is before a full bench. And I found that the later judgment and the earlier judgment, there is a reference is not there. It's not to find fault with anybody. I mean, our duty as advocates to bring those matters to the notice of the court. I'm certainly not saying that, but what I'm saying is that creates a complexity when a later judgment does not refer to an earlier judgment, then the matters necessarily have to go to larger benches for resolution. So returning to what Justice Ravindran said in that case on the question of perincurium, the ratio of that judgment is not so important as to the manner in which the questions were formulated. And not only the obvious question that arose was answered, but two or three consequential and collateral questions were also answered, which is the foresight of a bench to see those questions arising and the ability to answer them so that disputes, uncertainty, inconsistency is mitigated, especially when those judgments are cited before the trial court. It helps that the judgment you are citing decides not only the question that is arising, but the possible implications and consequences of it. So for example, stamping of a document in an arbitration dispute, the non-registration of a document. There, the bifurcation or trifurcation of a question of law into what are its consequences and what circumstances is a document inadmissible completely in what circumstances can an arbitration agreement be relied upon, to how far is an agreement segregatable from the arbitration clause, et cetera. This gives you great clarity going forward. And those are the attributes, I believe, of a good judgment. We must try and lean towards citing those judgments that follow some of these attributes because it makes the task of the court easier to try and understand and arrive at a fair conclusion. I want to say here also, Mr. Vikas had raised the question of pleadings. Look, your research before preparing a draft must be exhaustive. Whether you intend to cite those judgments or not is a separate question. But the deeper your research is prior to preparation of a petition or a complaint, the better the draft becomes because it enables you to foresee grounds, even objections that somebody may raise. If you're already cognizant of a jurisdictional issue, you will bring it into your petition. For example, today there was a matter being heard in the High Court where there was some latches in a public interest litigation. Now latches could easily be explained away on facts. Unfortunately, that petition had no whisper about why the petitioners did not approach the court for a long period of time. Now here, if your research is in order, you will firstly know that latches is not a complete bud. Latches in a public interest petition where there is a larger public interest required can become a secondary aspect if you A, show larger public interest and B, you make some pleading to explain why there was a delay if you were making a representation or you only became aware of an order subsequently, et cetera. This is a simplistic example, but what this does is it helps you preempt situations. There are many cases where you will be in doubt whether a petition is maintainable, whether a respondent is amenable to a writ or not. That is where your case law comes in. You will know what the latest position of the Supreme Court is on say article 12 and state or a public authority under 226 and you will then bring the respondent into that fold to make it amenable. So that is one that research helps you read a judgment and prepare your draft better. The second thing is this question as to how far you must cite judgments in pleadings. I personally believe pleading should not contain judgments unless of course it is an open and shut case where a matter is covered by a judgment. Then I think it's only fair that you annex that judgment so that the court can straightaway take a view on it. But barring that exception, I find that a lot of drafts are cluttered with case law. And again, cluttered with case law that really is not needed. I can understand if there is a precedent on a very unique point that you have not argued before or that has not come up before a court. You know, for example, let us say the role of a governor acting as a chancellor of a university, whether he or she has the power, let us say to constitute a committee. In fact, that's something we are arguing whether a chancellor can constitute a one man committee if the statute is signed. And if it is something pointed like that where there could be some issue, yes, it may help. Though I personally believe it's enough to cite the principle or the ground without citing the judgment. It gives you a little bit of an advantage also. After all, you must let your opponent do some hard work as well. If you cite all judgments on the point in your pleadings, you are in fact on a platter providing those judgments to your opponent. I don't think you need to be that fair also. You must be fair to the court and your opponent in terms of sharing judgments that you cite at the time of argument, no doubt. But when a matter is coming up for admission, in many ways, it's better to keep your ammunition bright and use it as and when it is required. So this is something I do believe should be taken note of and sometimes what this also does is it bulks up the drafts. After all, a plaint, those of you practicing in the trial side will know. Unlike a repetition, a plaint does not even have grounds. A plaint is a plain statement of facts. And it is in many ways harder to draft a plaint than a petition because it requires that absolutely surgical degree of precision to state all facts. If it's a case of fraud to disclose the fraud, to state the jurisdictional facts, to state the facts relating to the cause of action, to the jurisdiction of the court, limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction, if it's a specific relief suit, the readiness and willingness, the binding nature of an agreement all to be captured. And the best drafts you will see are short drafts, three pages, four pages, but winning cases simply because the research and the hard work that goes in behind that draft. And that, I feel sometimes when a plaint contains, extracts from annexures and case law, et cetera, it somehow dilutes the tradition of good drafting. The Bombay High Court, Bombay Bar has taken cognizance of this and said that a very conscious effort is to be made to reduce the length of drafts. And if you, I remember Mr. Kambhata had said that if you can't make your case in 30 pages, then you can't make your case even in 300 pages. That is true even when you're arguing. If you can't make a case for admission in three or four minutes, you probably have no case. And therefore, I think keeping your case law handy to be used on a neat basis to see what objections the other side files. That's also important. Issues arise in court based on pleadings and counter pleadings. In a suit, issues arise only if there is a denial by the defendant. If you're fortunate and the defendant does not deny some abhorment of yours, why plant ideas in your defendant's, in your opponent's mind? So also in a writ, if some particular allegation made by you is not met or not denied, that point to may not arise for consideration, then why complicate the issue for yourself and for the court. After all, what is advocacy? It is simplifying complex issues, simplifying matters for courts and enabling courts to arrive at the crux of a case. Just as I said, the crux of a judgment is the ratio. Every case has a crux or a central point to it. And that is our effort as councils based on our efforts and industry to try and bring the court to that central point so that a case can be decided and justice can be delivered. I do want to also say here, friends, that the art of citing a judgment is not just an art or a craft in court. It is also something that directly relates to your credibility as a council. And why I say this is that many times you will find in court in a case that you have judgments that have been overruled being cited. No, you may get away with it once or twice, but you won't get away with it forever. And sooner or later, the court will find out or your opponent will point it out that a judgment you have cited which may have helped you has been overruled. That will destroy your credibility in the eyes of the court. So please don't do that. You have a duty to cite the correct law. And this is where many times I have seen council grapple where you have contrary judgments or you have judgments that stare you in the face. Look, if it's a Supreme Court judgment, 141, you know, the matter is settled, then you see by and large the matter is covered. And I think council should be gracious enough in cases that are directly covered against them to make that concession in court. There is no point in laboring those cases where a point is decided. If a subsequent purchaser in a land acquisition matter does not have the local standard to maintain a repritition as the Supreme Court has said, why argue it? But not every case is so black and white. So those cases where you find that you have a judgment that assists you and you have a judgment that does not assist you in the sense that it is a view that is opposing to what you're arguing. It may be of another high court. I personally believe that it's a good practice to place that opposing view before the court. Look, whether you do it or not, your opponent will do it in all likelihood. Or the court itself may be aware of it. So why suppress and skirt that issue? Secondly and more importantly, your credibility stands in court that here is a fair counsel who is bringing to the notice of the court all points of law and all case law on the point. Thirdly and perhaps more importantly than that as well, it gives you an edge. When you yourself cite a judgment that is against you, the court may be more open to listening to your submission as to how that contrary view should be distinguished. I'm again reminded of a case that I had done before Justice Ravindran on a question as to the court fees payable, this must be of the year 2000 probably, of when a question arose as to the court fees payable in a suit for cancellation of a document, of a pro note. And the question was whether you paid simplicity court fees or do you pay add value on court fees? And the matter was placed before the honorable bench, I think of Justice Ravindran and Justice Sangla if I remember and notice was issued to the government advocate to have his say because it was a matter of revenue, though it was a civil appeal. I found that there was no direct judgment of the Karnataka High Court. There were divergent views that different courts had taken. And there was a view that the Madras High Court had taken which was directly against me. And I remember citing that judgment first before the bench in some trepidation because I was still a young lawyer and telling the court that here is a view that is against me but I will do my best to try and overcome it and persuade the court that that view should not be agreed. It so happened in that case, the court agreed not with me but with the divergent view but I still cherish the fact that after that case was argued, Justice Ravindran took a second to tell me that the court was happy with my research and complimented me for it. But I can tell you friends that there have been many instances where the court has in fact been gracious enough to take a view different from a view that another court may have taken. Of course, if you're bound by it and it's your own high court, it's a different matter. But supposing it is a view of another high court, it is only persuasive, it is not binding. And that is where you have the window to be able to convince the court to look at a matter with a fresh pair of eyes. But if you suppress, you don't place that judgment and you argue as if the law is completely in your favor, you may have a little bit of leeway till your opponent begins or till the court finds out what the correct position and thereafter it does not reflect well on your credibility. It also does not give you a better chance in the ultimate outcome of the case. Here I also want to say that this tendency to cite head notes must be completely avoided. I don't know, sometimes I see this more perhaps in orders of the trial court. In fact, mostly in the orders of the trial court that head notes are extracted. Obviously, because as counsel head notes are being supplied, they are being culled out in a written submission and provided though the judgment copies should also be given. This is I think the most dangerous and then avoidable practice. You see, firstly, a head note is not the judgment. A head note is something that a publisher, a law reporter prepares. Now some do it well, some not so well. Either which way, if it is not a verbatim extract of the judgment, it is not the law. In a head note also, there are two species. One is the telegraphic head note of what the law reporter thinks the court has decided. The other is the extract from the body of the judgment under the head note. Probably the latter is a slightly safer part to cite, but again, don't ever read that to the court. Go to the paragraph because the preceding paragraphs as I already said to you, the facts leading up to the case, the questions of law decided. Is it a dissenting view or a majority view? Is it a view that is taken basis some other judgments? Does the judgment then in turn refer to maybe foreign case law, et cetera, et cetera? That can only be seen from the text of the judgment. And secondly, it makes for very weak and lazy advocacy, doesn't it, to cite a head note. Sometimes you have seen that head notes can be telegraphic. Read petition dash, article 226 dash, whether maintainable against private respondent. I mean, what is that? I mean, that's a very kindergarten way of looking at a judgment, isn't it? The law is far more nuanced than that. So that is again something that reflects on your credibility. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, but please avoid that practice. The other important aspect before I conclude on the matter of reading and citing judgments is, which is in a way linked not only to your credibility, but also to your role as an advocate, is the assistance that you provide to the court. Your role as a counsel is not just to argue, take an order and leave the court. That's a simplistic view of the practice. And as you get along at the bar, you get a bit more senior, you realize that the court looks at you, especially if you're a senior, though I would think every counsel is an officer of the court. You are expected to assist the court in laying down the correct law. After all, what are judgments? Recently, Justice Nijganwar, who retired from the Karnataka High Court said that his judgments were a reflection of the assistance that the bar provided. And that's nothing new. I mean, that is something that we have heard. And it's so true in an adversarial system like ours, the countervailing inputs that are provided to the court by both sides or by multiple sides are really what make up the judgment. Yes, the court will have its own news, will have its own knowledge, et cetera. But in an overburdened system like ours, many times the assistance that we give to the court is what leads to the judgment. So therefore, our role in helping the court lay down the correct law also becomes extremely important friends. I remember I had argued a case before a division bench where a question arose as to the scope of section nine of the arbitration and conciliation act. And there initially the court took a view that section nine itself being in the nature of interim relief, the question of further ad interim relief being granted in nine did not arise. And that law was laid down. I was quite upset that I had appeared in that case because that law was palpably wrong. Section nine, as you know, is an offshoot of order 39. The need and the power to grant ad interim expatriate injunctions is integral to nine. But to the credit of the bench, and I was upset that that judgment would be cited and it would seem as if I have argued that proposition or not properly assisted the court. But when we filed a review to the credit of the bench, the bench recalled its order. Mr. Shailendra Kumar was heading that review bench, recalled the order and set right the position that nine indeed included the power to grant ad interim. It's a simple example I'm giving you, but the assistance becomes important. And it's our duty to help the court lay down the law. After all, credibility not only of us as counsel but of our court, right? Where we practice, we ought to be able to enable better judgments to be reported and better principles to be decided by our courts. And that is where again, the reading and citing of judgments becomes extremely important. In many ways it reflects. And this is where taking your research lateral is extremely important friends. We are harping today on judgments. But let me tell you many times the understanding of the law can be made by looking beyond judgments. Of course, you can firstly look beyond your own jurisdiction. Sometimes you find judgments emanating from other jurisdictions, especially common law jurisdictions. A lot of English law can be helpful. That's not to say you should always cite English law when you have a domestic judgment to help you. But sometimes I remember there was a case where the court put me a question where the will in a probate petition, the will was not signed on each page. The court asked me whether that can't amounts to a valid will or not. And it so happened that at least at that point in time there was no direct Indian judgment on the point. But by then reverting to Halsbury and some English law, we were able to submit before the court that as long as there is no question as to the validity or genuineness of the will simply because each page is not signed the will would not be appreciated. And the court accepted that view. I think it's a reported judgment by referring to some English law on the point. And you will see in more recent judgments the Supreme Court and the High Courts have not just been referring to international law on the point but going far beyond looking at authors and scholars and jurists, articles that are published, speeches that are made and published, universal declarations that are in place, international treaties that may apply in certain cases of human rights advocacy or even in tax matters and so on. And that again, friends helps you develop the law. After all, what is the whole idea of our profession and submitting and assisting the court if it is not to help develop our own cerebral capacities to develop our understanding of the law and also help the court in laying down better a nuanced law. And that is where friends, I think the role of judgments becomes is crucially important. As I've said, they have to be a springboard, not a crutch. They can't be a mere dependency for you in your practice but in appropriate cases, at appropriate times, they become a sort of a trump card for you to be able to drive home what you are submitting. There again, I always believe that your submission should come first and then the judgment should come after if needed or asked for by the court because that helps us also as counsel develop our acumen. And finally, I would say a very interesting part of researching judgments and citing them is the trivia that you find. Now, this personally, I find very entertaining for the reason that it makes the advocacy process more enjoyable. Now, sometimes you will find the more and more you read judgment or you may have appeared in a reported judgment, right? Therefore, you may know a little more about that case when your opponent has appeared in a case and argued a different view. I mean, no advocate has stopped from arguing a point of law but it brings a little bit of humor. If you're able to say that your opponent has in a reported judgment, in fact argued a diametrically opposing position. Or sometimes you may find a trivia to the, not only that you may find judgments of the bench that you're arguing before, sometimes interestingly, you may find a judgment where the judge who you're arguing before may have appeared as a counsel. It may not make any difference to the outcome of the case but it makes for very interesting exchanges in court. You may find sometimes that the, the more you pay attention to the parties to a case. Again, you find interesting matters. Recently we were arguing a case before the high court on a question of Estoppel. And there I found that the judgment in fact related to the role of a chief minister from Goa. That was quite a sensational case in those days. So if you can spend, take two minutes away from your submission and remind the court about a historic matter or an interesting political matter that went to the court or who the individuals involved were, it just lightens up the proceedings. It also makes, I think for more entertaining exchange. And there's so much trivia you can find. Sometimes you may find that if you, that you're espousing is different from a view that the father of the judge may have taken in some other case, right? Or sometimes a Supreme Court judge may have appeared as a counsel in his or her day in the high court and argued a matter. Somebody, sometimes maybe a law minister may have appeared. I'm saying again, this is not something that is necessarily relevant to the outcome of the case at all. But this is a nice way to lighten up the atmosphere. It makes your reading of case law also very enjoyable. You see, you will also begin to understand the jurisprudence and ideology of judges. Sometimes by just looking at the name of the judge who has authored a judgment, you may be able to predict what the judgment is. I mean this in a responsible way because of the deeper reading that you may do. It helps you also filter out and sift through judgments on that basis. And that trivia is also enjoyable. It provides sometimes a bit of laughter and a bit of enlightening of the atmosphere in court which you'll all agree we can do with it. It helps us also enjoy the practice of the law. So friends, with these words, I will stop here. I thank you again for this invitation and be happy to take the questions if you have any. Mr. Sothi, the way you brushed up the entire gamut as to how the things have taken over and the way like you have told that you should read the judgments where the opponent has taken up or the judge has taken up. I can say in my own words, that it is more like a surgical strike where you can actually win in the right manner. Like a lot of words you used because since we are a lot of young students also, before we take to the actual questions being taken up, some people would like to understand what do you mean by parent curing message? See, parent, should I answer that right away? Yeah, parent curing and ratio isn't right because a lot of people would like to understand also. So ratio of course, as I've said, you see the principle of stare decisis and the binding nature of a judgment really depends on what its ratio is. And a ratio is directly related in my opinion to the question of law that arose in a given case. And as I said, if the judgment itself makes it clear, your job is easier. If it does not, then it's your job to read what facts arose for the direct consideration of the court, direct consideration of the court. And that is the answer to that question is what becomes the ratio of the judgment. Orbiter is everything else. And orbiter may be an observation which relates to the ratio, but does not directly arise in a case. Supposing the question relates to say limitation. And the direct question is whether making of a filing of a plane in the wrong court, for instance, can give you the benefit of an exclusion of limitation. And you will find that there are divergent views on that, sometimes especially when it comes to arbitration proceedings and so on. The answer to that question will be the ratio, whether you need to make an application under section 14 for exclusion of time or not. But in the process, the court may also discuss some other aspects. For example, whether time spent in making representations to an authority is to be excluded or not, et cetera, et cetera. That becomes a ratio, becomes an orbiter. It becomes a mere observation of the court on a matter which does not directly arise for its consideration and is therefore not the ratio of the case. As I said, in some cases, orbiter also can be binding. If the orbiter is that of the Supreme Court then there is no other contrary view to it. But otherwise, the emphasis in stare decisis in citing binding judgments remains on the ratio of the case. There could also be cases that there are observations made which are not even in the nature of orbiter dicta. There may be simplicity or observations or expressions of view that the judges make which have no relation to a court also. And those, again, the court itself, the Supreme Court itself has said, stand on a weaker category than even orbiter dicta of the court. As regards per incurium, per incurium essentially is bad law. The other phrase you may have heard alongside it is sub silencio. Sub silencio is basically when a judgment is passed in silence, in silence, meaning it does not either give reasons or the judgment does not take into account the rule or the act or the provision that is applicable to it. Per incurium is of course, slightly more complex concept. It is cases where a court inadvertently may lay down the wrong law that it may do either on a misreading of a provision. It may do so by, for example, referring to a provision of law that has already been repealed or amended or it disregards a binding view of a larger bench. And in all of those cases, the law becomes per incurium. For example, you know that the arbitration and Constellation Act was amended in 2015. The scope of judicial review of the trial court was amended to reduce the intervention of the court. Now we did a case recently where the trial court, in fact, decided a section 34 matter by applying the pre-amended law. Now that becomes a case of per incurium, though per incurium is generally used more in the context of the constitutional courts, the High Court or the Supreme Court, but the principle remains the same, that the judgment essentially is bad in law, not because it is a view that you don't agree with, but because it is bad in law on the face of it who having not taken into account an applicable provision or not having applied a judgment which holds the field. Yes, sir. Next question. Yeah. This is by Amit Shukla. Should a law student start reading and analyzing the judgment from the very beginning and how should one begin with? See, I would very much encourage you to read judgments right from the start, but I'll also tell you this frankly, that judgments are not read like story books. At least for me personally, I cannot read a judgment until and unless I have to apply it. I may apply it to a case, I may apply it to a lecture, I may apply it to some article I'm writing, but I find it difficult to take in a judgment until and unless it relates to some substantive work I'm doing. So I know of many advocates who read judgments in their leisure time, it's to their credit. They expand their knowledge. If you can do that, fine. But I personally feel that your mind gets activated when you are dealing with a question of law that you need to argue. That is when as an advocate you really come alive and try and read judgments in that context. If your senior gives you a, of course you said as a law student, so I would assume that then your role is related to let us say some project submission you're making or a moot court that you're doing or some debate you may be doing on a current issue. You know today there are multiple current issues that people are discussing. Now if you are supposing you're called upon to do a debate on the question of the need for a uniform civil court. That is when you may read judgments quite differently because you will be activated based on the issue that you're addressing to an audience. And therefore, yes, certainly read judgments. Don't read them in a vacuum because it may not even register with you but certainly make it a point to read as many judgments as you can when it comes to relating them to the work that you're required to do as a law student or even as a young lawyer if your senior gives you a file. Don't, your senior may ask you to go and take an adjournment but your learning is improved if you read the case law that applies to that case. In fact, you may be able to make two submissions in court also. Many times I've seen that I may be digressing here but let me say this that if a junior comes to take some time simply again court will find you to be a slightly decent lawyer. You will also have learned something and yeah, that's my answer. Yeah, two persons have posted it. The cracks are the same. They say how to skim the facts and learn the judgment and what is the, any manner to remember the citations any technique for that? Look, I'll be honest. I don't belong to that school of thought that you need to memorize judgments and names and citations. In fact, that is the advantage of having research engines today that you have the ability to find case law at your fingertips. So don't please feel under pressure. Those councils were able to remember citations. They have an elephantine memory. It's to their credit. But please, please try and internalize the principles and many times you will find there are unique principles that are laid down and that is where you have to work by reverse engineering. I find it easier to remember judgments from the trivia. I was mentioning the trivia. Which bench took the view? Or which councils appeared? Or was it, yeah. To repeat what I was saying, a good way to remember judgments is basis the trivia as to which bench may have laid it down or which council may have argued the matter or which city or which issue may have arisen something interesting. Like let us say it's a carbon park issue of Bangalore or I find that a helpful way of remembering and then quickly finding that judgment. But also keep notes. Keep a diary or an online journal where you record your research. By that again, I don't mean obvious judgments where you will find 100 judgments which say without sanction there can be no charge framed against a public servant. We know that. But something unique. Keep a note of those unique judgments and don't feel under pressure to memorize them. If you have that memory, yes you must also work on your memory. Don't always depend on notes and so on. Try and test your memory in court sometimes. Don't always make exhaustive notes of every page and every, it's a good thing to have a working note of your arguments. But try and also back yourself on what you remember. But don't certainly feel pressure to remember page numbers and parameters. If you do it fine, if you don't, you will find it as long as your basic database is strong. Yes, sir. The concept of hyperlinking you have taught that if you don't remember the citation, at least remember the judge or the process. Now it isn't electronic, you can find it by the judge's name and the lawyer's name also. This is by Hamza what should one focus to build a solid foundation to become a sound lawyer? This topic is different now. But should I answer it? You can, but I can say that they can watch your YouTube video that's full on it. Yeah, there is a talk. You had taken that session in the NLS Bangalore. Oh, you can take this into that or if you want to privately contact me for this, you're very welcome to call me up or write a mail, I'll answer it for you. Yes, sir. So, but in the mail, that can be summed up because there you took around one and a half hour to make them understand how can be one be a good lawyer. Yes, sir. So this is a common question which will actually crop up in a lot of lawyers' minds also. He's saying I am from a vernacular medium. How should I prepare for reading the judgment and convey it to the court? Yeah, that's a challenge that advocates would face. I mean, if your grasp of the language is not as good as some of your peers, you have to work on it harder. But I'll tell you, I have seen juniors who have had whose proficiency in Canada was stronger than in English. But the moment you develop that instinct of a lawyer, the language will not be a barrier. The important thing is not the language, it's your instinct. If you develop that analytical instinct of an advocate, whether you're arguing in your vernacular or in English, I don't think should matter. And many judges are very open to it. In fact, they encourage lawyers to even argue in the vernacular. So don't be discouraged by it. The important thing is to try and develop your feel for the law and your instinct from the law. And the language can always be brushed up with time to come. There's no harm in taking help, especially when it comes to reading complex judgments, large judgments, judgments where there are many dissents. Sometimes Keshan and Bharti, for example, seven is to six, it's sometimes difficult to know what the majority view is. So no harm in slightly complex cases like that to take help from your seniors as well. Yes, sir. I'm just taking, this is probably out of context, when Keshan is asking, where can I get citations? And there's no citation, okay. Regarding complaint against an advocate with the bar council. Let's keep the questions to the topic, sir. Let us keep those. Yeah, yeah, one is asking any take on the question. This, sir, my question is, instead of section and provisions of the law, the judgment of the High Court and Supreme Court, are more reliable or the first principle of the judgment and section we should do? No, I think- Whether the first principle is more important, is that the question? No, he says, what is the basic fundamental principle? Probably logged in later on, because your first principle was read the section first and then send to the judgment. Don't put the card before the horse. That's right, that's right. And how to read a judgment when it's trans into pages? Well, all judgments run into pages. You have to burn the midnight oil. There are judgments that sometimes run into hundreds, if not thousand plus pages also. But again, I've noticed that even in bulky judgments like that, often nowadays you find an index. The judgment gives you an index as to what it is deciding. Even in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, you will find the judgment may run into hundreds of pages, but you know that the issues are clearly indicated and you find that many times, especially where some point of law is being decided if it's referred to a larger bench, for example. So use the index, try and go directly to the parts first that you need an answer to, then come back to the later parts. But as far as possible, try and read a judgment fully. It always helps you because it helps your understanding. It also avoids surprises that your opponents may spring on you. If you only read one paragraph, which I said is the risk with a headnote, you may not even know what else has been said somewhere. And then when your opponent cites it, you get stumped. So yes, maybe with very bulky judgments, it's a tall ask, but as far as possible, read the judgment in its entirety. You may speed read it. You may focus on the ratio, but you must still read the entire judgment to at least know what the court has said at different places. This is my answer. Our citation, a must for a winning a case. No, I already said they are not. If you're able to give the answer to a question on facts, you may win a case on facts. You don't even need the law in some cases, right? In a mandamus repetition, if a party does not make a representation, you don't need the law on that. It's a fact that a party has not made a representation. How he goes, no mandamus lies. And even there, if there's a point of law, as I began by saying, you don't need citations in every case. The case can be decided on first principle. It can be decided on statute. It's only if there is some ambiguity or you need to drive home a point that citations are required. Yeah. But one school of thought says that if you read the judgments as a youngster, then in that process, you understand what was the fundamental leading to that because some of the judgments elaborated and explained it way. Because that principle, what you are saying, a mandamus cannot be decided by representation. Either you have to read the constitution according to me, threadbare, or once you have read it, what would be the mandamus? So sometimes even the reading of the judgments helps to develop a principle. Sometimes the client comes and you are not able to answer it. But subsequently you read the judgment, you understand that the principle, how it could have been handled. There was a question regarding Nikanti and Induja, incidentally, I saw some of that. Yeah. Somebody has asked whether Nikanti... I didn't take the question because it was not as such directly with the session. Yeah, but the gentleman is asking if there is subsilence show. Incidentally, I am arguing that question as we speak. And those judgments come up quite often as to whether latches in bringing proceedings under the PTCL Act are fatal. And there are different views. If you see the judgment in Satyan, which is reported in the very same SCC as Nikanti and Induja, Satyan's different bench says seven, eight years delay is not fatal. These judgments say greater delay is fatal. Of course, there are points for distinction there. The extent of delay, it's a first principle of administrative law that if action is to be initiated by an authority, it should be done within a reasonable time. But there are distinctions also to be made whether a transfer is void, have an issue post the coming into the act or whether it is a transfer pre the act, what is the role of the authority and so on. So I wouldn't necessarily say they are subsilentio. I do think they're distinguishable. Supreme Court itself has distinguished it. High courts have distinguished them depending on the extent of the delay. At some point this question may again get referred to a larger bench as to what happens in post the 96 act post the 79 act transfers which are void, have an issue because once it's void, have an issue then delay per se may not make a difference. So that's a good question. Yes sir, next question. We are taking from the YouTube can you shed some light on the method with GV you personally use while you are in a particular position probably you will not how do you tell your associate to research a particular proposition of law? By you see understanding and identifying clearly what question arises on the facts of the case that is my job as a senior if I don't do it then any research assistance I get is also of no use. My job bases the petition if that comes to me is to identify what is that question that arises on the facts is it something that has already been answered or not answered if it's already answered or is a well settled principle I don't need research assistance but if it is a question that is new or ticklish it's my job to identify it and then set it down to a colleague to find that answer that makes a big difference it also helps the junior colleagues focus on specific issues that arise in a context and that makes for far more interesting research I believe for for all concern. Sometimes you have to take a cue from the court you see the you may think there are 10 points in a case but the court may focus on two of them and the court may then adjourn the matter for you to come back on those points then your research has to be court facing you must assist the court as I said on what it wants from you so that's also an important aspect yeah last question you will take different between the reportable and non-reportable judgments whether courts also rely upon non-reportable judgments yes of course I mean look an unreported judgment is the same standing as a reported judgment let's make no difference as long as that judgment is correct it's not been overruled or does not differ from any larger binding view that the court may have taken in fact nowadays you have the great unreported judgments which you didn't so easily earlier today on the website of the high courts you have a database of judgments you have some search engines which help you find unreported judgments and many times that makes your job easy in fact in this question that the previous gentleman asked about Nikanti and Hinduja we found an unreported judgment of the bench where Satyan was following instead of Hinduja it makes a big difference if the bench that you're arguing before itself has followed one over the other you have better legs as an advocate so please don't take it that it is only reported judgments yes by and large judgments that are reported are presumed to have decided a question of law so you can't discount that you must give reported judgments their importance but if you're able to find this is where your effort comes in again if you're able to find unreported judgments on that point by all means you have a right to cycle yeah thank you Mr. Sothi for sharing your insights the way you have told us that how to create a credibility as they say in the law that you may lose a case but don't lose a judge and the way you have helped us to funnel the proposition as to how the law has to be researched I think a lot of youngsters and even the other lawyers would gain from that the insights being shared on the weekend would be cherished for them for all times to come we are grateful for sharing your insights thank you everyone stay safe, stay blessed and those who want to see the some of the webinars where Mr. Sondhi has taken things they can just google it just like a research you will find a lot of webinars on the Mr. Sondhi sessions also and those who want to connect with the webinars of Beyond Law CLC they can like share and subscribe to the channel of Beyond Law CLC or comment also we will take those sessions thank you everyone thank you stay safe thank you very much