Judgments should not be written with a pen dipped in acid: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court last week expunged a portion of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs which made certain adverse observations on the manner in which a case was argued by a lawyer (MS Srinivasa v. Union of India)..Justice Krishna S Dixit stressed that judgments and orders should not be written with a "pen dipped in acid," since the same robs the living beauty of scripts."...it hardly needs to be stated that judgments and orders should not be written with a pen dipped in acid; after all 'acidity' affects health; the acidic words rob away the living beauty of the scripts...".The petitioner, an advocate, sought expungement of the part of the order passed by the Commissioner that read:“The objective of imposing a penalty of Rs.15000/- is only to impress upon the appellant that they ought to be more careful in future and do justice to their role and duties rather than take shelter behind technicalities and advocates who think they can defend the indefensible by giving their own skewed understanding of the law and misguiding appellants.”.The Court called for greater leverage to be given to counsel while making their arguments. The order stated,"...novel and innovative arguments come handy in removing the mask and seeing the true face of law & justice; merely because the arguments of a lawyer are laced with novelty and innovation, at times that may not be to the liking of adjudicating authority, judgments cannot be couched in unhappy words; petitioner is more than justified in submitting that the Courts & adjudicatory authorities should not be too sensitive...".Justice Dixit ultimately granted reprieve to the petitioner, reasoning that a lawyer has a duty to the court, to their client and to the profession, and even has privileges.“Advocacy is a distinguished profession affording full scope for the talents of the brightest intellect; a lawyer should be free to put forward creative & generic ideas concerning the case, unhindered & fearlessly...”.While appreciating the "beauty" of the rest of the order in question, the Court called for expunction of the challenged part..Advocate Sourabh RK appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Advocates Pratibha R Jeevan and J Neeralgi..[Read Judgment]