Humor and the law: A study in contrasts

Comedy has recently found itself under the scrutiny of the courts. But this article is not concerned with the legalities of comedy or the comedic elements of law, but rather with the logical constructs that underpin both disciplines.

It is also not intended to be a collection of legal jokes, but rather a contemplation of the nature of law and humour respectively.

The syntax and cognitive categories of law and humour are, in many ways, inversions of each other. Where law seeks order, humour revels in disorder. Where law is a serious endeavour, humour is a playful subversion of that seriousness.

Law is an inherently serious field, but paradoxically, it is also populated by some of the most humorous individuals. Perhaps it is the inherent rigidity of legal proceedings, with their archaic language and solemn rituals, that creates an irresistible opportunity for mockery. The formality and decorum of courtrooms and legal documents provide a stark contrast to the irreverence of humour.

There is also a direct contradiction in the way language operates in the field of law and humor. The goal of language in law is precision and the elimination of ambiguity. On the other hand, puns and jokes revel in double meanings.

Legal narrative seeks to be clear about its message from the beginning. Levity is best served when the punchline comes as a surprise.

When humour is examined through the lens of the law, it can appear abrasive or even offensive. The legal world operates on strict norms, and its primary function is the establishment and protection of those norms. Conversely, humour thrives on challenging, provoking and, sometimes, outright dismantling norms. This fundamental difference in purpose often causes friction when legal institutions attempt to regulate humour.

The more rigid and onerous the norms of society become, the funnier even slight deviations appear. The humour in minor transgressions is amplified when they occur within highly structured settings, such as courtrooms or legislative chambers. The sheer formality of these spaces makes any act of irreverence seem far more amusing than it might in a more casual context.

People of the law must recognise that the world outside does not constantly function in legalistic terms. What appears irreverent or inappropriate to a legal mind might simply be an everyday expression of wit for the layperson. This difference in perspective is essential in understanding why certain comedic acts spark controversy within legal circles.

Law, as a profession, is steeped in hierarchy. Judges wield immense power and the tradition of deference shown to them by lawyers often borders on obsequiousness. This dynamic, with its ritualistic bowing and archaic court etiquette, is a prime setting for humour.

A particularly cherished form of legal humour is the temporary inversion of hierarchy—when a lawyer dares to employ a well-timed witticism in court, momentarily making everyone forget the gradient of power and solemnity of the occasion. Such moments become the stuff of legend, passed down through generations of legal practitioners, often with embellishments.

The juxtaposition of strict courtroom decorum with spontaneous irreverence provides a rich source of comedic value.

Despite all these diagonal contradictions between the two fields, we see that the people of the law – lawyers, judges, and all other associated creatures - are very proficient in humour.

The profession of law draws to itself people with the cleverness necessary for wit. The ones who thrive in the profession routinely wield language with great effect in oratory and in writing. Endowed with wider vocabularies than most, and having occasion to deal with arcane usages and dialects, they are best equipped to identify and deliver puns and amusing turns of phrase.

Another useful skill of the trade is paying attention and reacting to the audience, which naturally translates to great comedic timing. Just being in the bustle of the courts is to have a front row ticket to that which is the heart and soul of humour – human life itself.

Both law and humour examine the absurdities of the human condition. When something ridiculous happens to an individual, it may be subject to legal proceedings. Or it may become the premise for a joke. Often, it becomes both.

A good example is the apocryphal case of Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock, a creation of author AP Herbert. In this fictional case, Albert Haddock, a recurring character, responds to a tax demand by writing a cheque on the side of a white cow and presenting it to the tax office. When challenged, he argues that there is no legal requirement specifying that a cheque must be on paper. The case is, of course, entirely fictitious. Yet, it illustrates the kind of absurdity that both humour and the law love to explore.

Humour about lawyers and the legal profession is a category of its own. Jokes about lawyers often exploit stereotypes of greed, verbosity and trickery. The general public harbours a degree of mistrust toward lawyers, seeing them as individuals who manipulate words and laws to their advantage. This perception has fueled an entire genre of lawyer jokes, which are too numerous and too corny to recount here.

Judges too might be at the receiving end of some gentle poking. For example:

Q: Why did the judge dismiss his coffee?
A: No good grounds.

These jokes reflect the public’s perception of the legal profession—one that is both mystified and amused by its complexity.

Humour and law, while seemingly at odds, share a fundamental relationship. Both dissect human behavior and expose absurdities, albeit through different lenses. While law seeks to regulate and enforce norms, humour exists to challenge and subvert them. The interplay between these two forces is what makes legal humour so compelling.

As long as the law remains rigid and hierarchical, it will continue to provide ample material for humour. And as long as humour exists, it will continue to poke fun at the solemnity of legal proceedings. The relationship between humour and the law is one of necessary contrast - one that ensures that, even in the most serious of professions, laughter finds a way.

Vikram Hegde is an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India.