Modern legal language, especially when used in contracts, is supposed to be simple in structure and comprehensible to the parties involved. A recent case in India, reported by the BBC, shows us why.

The Supreme Court apparently sent back an incomprehensible judgment from a high court judge in the state of Himachal Pradesh for re-drafting because it was simply unintelligible. Even a generous sprinkling of lawyer’s Latin in the sentences written by the high court was unable to revive any hopes of a coherent meaning for the appellate judges.

Below are two extracts from the original judgment. See if you can understand them. I would be interested in hearing from anybody who can explain what the high court was actually trying to say.

Good luck!

(P.S. If it helps at all, I can tell you that the legal dispute was between a tenant and landlord.)

“However, the learned counsel…cannot derive the fullest succour from the aforesaid acquiescence… given its sinew suffering partial dissipation from an imminent display occurring in the impugned pronouncement hereat wherewithin unravelments are held qua the rendition recorded by the learned Rent Controller…”


“The summum bonum of the aforesaid discussion is that all the aforesaid material which existed before the learned Executing Court standing slighted besides their impact standing untenably undermined by him whereupon the ensuing sequel therefrom is of the learned Executing Court while pronouncing its impugned rendition overlooking the relevant and germane evidence besides its not appreciating its worth. Consequently, the order impugned suffers from a gross absurdity and perversity of misappreciation of material on record.”