Judicial workload staggering, not fair to expect judges to spend too much time, energy in proofreading: Madras High Court

The workload on judges is staggering and it is not fair to expect them to spend too much time and energy in proof reading, the Madras High Court recently observed..Single-judge Justice GR Swaminathan was prompted to make these observations after coming across grave grammatical mistakes in the questions of law formulated by the High Court while admitting an appeal. “Since the judicial workload is staggering, it is not fair to expect the judges to expend too much time and energy in proof-reading. The counsel must assume greater responsibility. They must deeply study the case record,” the High Court said..The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment dated September 17, 2012 passed by the Principal District Court.By way of background, one Abdul Kareem (respondent before High Court) had filed a suit seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000 from the appellants for having maliciously prosecuted him.The suit was dismissed by the trial Court by a judgment dated July 13, 2010. This was challenged by way of appeal which was allowed by the first appellate court i.e Principal District Court by way of the September 2012 judgment..The defendant (appellant before the High Court) then filed the second appeal before the High Court..The High Court had, while admitting the appeal in 2013, framed the following legal questions for consideration:.“1.Whether the First Appellate Court has erroneously altered the judgment and decree of the trial Court and partly allowed the claim of the plaintiff without considering the nonjointer of necessary parties ie., also marked in Ex.A5 is a valid one ?2.Whether the First Appellate Court is ignoring the five elements required to prove for the suit for malicious prosecution is correct, when it leads to self-contrary in nature?3.Whether the first Appellate Court fails to consider the 161 statement in Cr.P.C, when negligence is existed on the part of the Investigation Officer is proper?”.When the matter came up for final hearing, the High Court noted that the aforesaid questions do not covey any meaning.“It does not make any sense at all,” the Court said.The High Court also proceeded to explain the reasons for the same as follows:"Though Section 100 (4) of CPC states that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question, what mostly happens in practice is not in strict consonance with the statutory mandate. Since Section 100(3) of CPC states that the appeal memorandum shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal, once the Judge is satisfied that a case has been made out for admitting the second appeal, instead of independently formulating the substantial question of law arising in the appeal, instruction is given to the stenographer to copy down certain particular grounds from the appeal memorandum. If the counsel's formulation is flawed and defective, the Court record also carries the same vice.”.The High Court admitted that it is “somewhat embarrassing” but said that counsel must assume greater responsibility since judges cannot be expected to proof read with the already staggering workload on them. “They (lawyers) must deeply study the case record. Their grasp of the legal principles must be thorough and accurate. The distilled understanding must be reflected in the appeal grounds. They must be properly drafted. There should not be grammatical and spelling errors. The role of stenographers and typists is equally significant. Only if all the stakeholders discharge their commitments sincerely, howlers like what we saw now can be avoided,” the Court said..The Court then proceeded to formulate the correct questions of law and answered them partly in favour of the appellant by reducing the quantum of compensation payable..[Read Judgment]