Ki and Ka are teenagers of Generation Alpha. While 'vibing,' they became intimate, resulting in a teenage pregnancy. At the counselling centre, Ki said that Ka had misunderstood her 'rizz,' but since he was her 'pookie,' she decided to 'skibidi.'

This might sound absurd to many of us baby boomers and millennials, but it is definitely not unrealistic. This short story captures a widening gap: the language of the generation and the embalmed black letter of the law.

The language of the time evolves every few years, whereas the language of the law is often laced in 'Victorian formality'; hereinafter, notwithstanding, subject to. One speaks in memes and mood, the other speaks in archaic monuments.

This divide leads us to a difficult yet plausible dilemma: can law be trusted, followed and challenged when it cannot be understood?

Is slang a linguistic decay? It most certainly is not; at best, it is linguistic innovation. Every generation invents shorthand for communication, particularly for expressing emotions tied to their social realities. 'Rizz' compresses charisma into one syllable. 'Pookie' signals affection and warmth. These words indicate consent and autonomy.

But when Ki tries to explain her situation to the legal system, she is forced to translate it into a foreign dialect.

Ki and Ka are translated as mere 'victim' and 'accused,' in which the entire communication is reduced to a complaint of alleged misinterpretation of consent and an attempt to prove malice. The emotional truth is filtered, flattened and formalised. This translation gap matters.

It shapes how testimony is recorded, how consent is interpreted, how intent is inferred and how responsibility is assigned. Law is a precise endeavour with a unique storytelling style embedded with stark consequences.

The language of the law remains formal for multifarious reasons: it could be for stability, precision and authority. A stable, formalised structure of expression helps establish a valid precedent, ensuring consistency with past decisions. Precision is valued because courts do not appreciate ambiguity; a single vague term can alter a case's outcome or weaken the enforcement framework. Authority is also reinforced through tradition, as archaic and formal language signals seriousness, power and institutional memory or rather institutional continuity. However, these advantages come at a cost: exclusion of the commoners who share a lived experience far aloof from the Victorian form of expression.

When ordinary citizens cannot understand contracts, court rulings or even their own rights without the help of a lawyer or 'an interpreter', the law stops being something for the people, of the people and by the people and instead it becomes something done to the people. Thus, law becomes deprived of the idea of justice.

I am not arguing for a legal language which reads as “if the accused had negative rizz….” The slang is volatile and the language of law should be durable; nevertheless, the slang should influence how law is written, explained and accessed. The goal is not to make legal language trendy; the goal is to make it intelligible.

How law can adapt without losing rigour:

Dual layer legal texts: Legal language should exist in two forms: an authoritative version wherein precise legal language exists for the courts and another plain language version wherein a clear, modern explanation exists for citizens. Hence, the same rule but two dialects. Much like medical reports, having clinical notes and patient summaries.

Legal translators: We need a new profession - legal communicators, who are trained in law and modern linguistics, who convert complex doctrine into accessible language without distorting meaning.

Living legal dictionaries: Courts already interpret words like 'arbitrary' or 'amendment'. Why not maintain public, evolving dictionaries that map slang, its contemporary relevance and the broader legal category? The idea is not to legislate slang, but to understand the reality behind testimony and behaviour.

Audio and visual law: Law should be presented to Generation Alpha as short videos, interactive explanations and illustrative guides. The idea is to promote the message and not to focus more on the medium.

The way forward is the democratisation of legal language. To democratise is not only to let people vote in it, but to let them understand it, experience it and, above all, to challenge it. This means removing unnecessary archaic language, teaching basic legal literacy in schools and publishing court decisions in clear, accessible summaries rather than lengthy prose filled with complex legal jargon. Most importantly, it requires treating legal comprehension as a civil right, because an unread right becomes an unreal right.

Ki’s explanation about 'rizz,' 'pookie,' and 'skibidi', while clumsy and playful, is the real emotion of a generation. However, when the law is translated into strict language, something is lost. The question is whether justice can afford that loss.

Sachinkumar PP is an Assistant Professor at Vinayaka Mission's Law School, Chennai.