In the realm of the Supreme Court, the two-page synopsis is often your primary opportunity to make an impression. Over my 12-year career, I have learned a crucial lesson: the effectiveness of your synopsis can significantly impact the outcome of your case. A Supreme Court judge, overwhelmed by an enormous caseload, will likely read the impugned order first. If your synopsis catches their attention, only then will they delve into the full petition.
A seasoned Supreme Court practitioner has often emphasized the importance of the synopsis, referring to it as ‘prime real estate.’ If the court ventures beyond the impugned order, your synopsis is likely what they will read next. This is your ‘two-page window’ to either capture the court’s attention or risk losing the case before uttering a word.
The Art of Effective Drafting
Leading practitioners excel in three areas: clearly articulating their case and desired outcomes, precisely formulating legal and factual points, and exercising ruthless word economy. If your drafting lacks these elements, no amount of case law will salvage your petition.
Maximizing Page Real Estate
Early in my career, I learned to treat each page of my petition as invaluable real estate. Supreme Court submissions are strictly regulated with specific formatting requirements, such as Times New Roman 14-point font and 1.5-line spacing. Every word must justify its presence.
A well-crafted synopsis must accomplish the following:
- Present the case in a coherent, chronological manner
- Identify flaws in the impugned order
- Clearly articulate the relief sought
- Provide a structured set of challenge grounds
This must be achieved without concealment or overstatement while maintaining respectful legal language. Precision, completeness, and deference are essential.
The Power of Bullet Points
One Senior Counsel is renowned for his bullet-pointed submissions, which he terms ‘pointillism.’ Bullet points compel you to:
- Break down grievances into digestible propositions
- Avoid lengthy sentences and rhetoric
- Align with the judge’s reading style, focusing on issues and grounds under time pressure
A concise synopsis beginning with numbered points signals clarity and condenses information effectively. In contrast, narrative synopses risk losing focus amidst unnecessary details, potentially leading to summary dismissal.
Thinking Before Typing
My mentor often spoke of the need to be a ‘thinking counsel,’ a notion I initially dismissed as cliché. However, drafting a compelling synopsis requires thoughtful consideration of key questions:
- What impression will the judge form upon reading the impugned order?
- If the judge only reads the order and synopsis, what is the key takeaway?
- How can the impugned order’s logic be unsettled concisely?
- What is the Court’s current stance on relevant legal issues?
Most Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenge High Court or tribunal orders. Your synopsis must justify Supreme Court interference, effectively countering the assumption that lower courts have adequately applied their minds.
Understanding Judicial Preferences
Modern technology offers unprecedented insights into the judicial process. Live-streaming and virtual hearings allow us to observe judges’ reading patterns. Notably, judges seek clear articulations of jurisdictional errors, procedural illegalities, or substantial legal questions, rather than lengthy narratives.
Justice AS Oka has criticized poor drafting practices, emphasizing the importance of filing essential annexures and avoiding verbose or misleading submissions. Former and current judges have highlighted their reading preferences: first the impugned order, then the synopsis, followed by selected petition parts.
Recent judgments, such as Justice R Mahadevan’s in Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Justice Dipankar Datta’s in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, establish disclosure requirements for criminal SLPs, which must be incorporated into your synopsis.
The Role of Reading in Drafting
Effective drafters are often avid readers. Reading exposes you to diverse structures, highlights ineffective drafting, and builds a repository of precedents and strategies. Familiarity with relevant cases, like Zeba Khan or Munnesh, is crucial for informed drafting.
In an age of instant legal reporting, staying informed is essential for Supreme Court practitioners. Continuous reading helps preempt judicial queries and aligns your drafting with current legal thinking.
AI and the Future of Drafting
AI tools are increasingly used in drafting, but they present challenges. AI often produces agreeable, polished language that lacks strategic depth. Rapid output can create a false sense of completion, risking over-delegation of the drafting process.
AI can assist with structuring, phrasing, and proofreading, but it cannot determine arguments or predict judicial reactions. The Supreme Court’s recent draft guidelines on responsible AI usage aim to address these challenges.
The synopsis embodies your case theory. If you do not fully own it, reconsider signing the petition. Spend time with the impugned order, the record, and a rough draft before using any tools. Ensure the final product reflects your courtroom voice and maintains your advocacy’s integrity.
Conclusion
Drafting is a form of advocacy that shapes the judge’s initial impression. A well-crafted synopsis leaves a lasting impact, even before oral arguments. The art of drafting lies in rigorous thinking and editing, with formatting and technology playing secondary roles.
This article reflects my personal insights into effective drafting, gained through experience and observation. As I continue to learn and evolve in my legal practice, so too will my understanding of Supreme Court drafting.
Shaurya Sahay is an Advocate-on-Record and Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
