‘Law Should Never Be a Puzzle’: Karnataka High Court Calls for Revival of Illustrations in Statutes
Court says laws should be drafted in the simplest possible language, urging Parliament and state legislatures to reintroduce statutory illustrations to reduce ambiguity and litigation.
In a significant observation on legislative drafting, the Karnataka High Court has urged lawmakers to revive the long-forgotten practice of incorporating illustrations in statutes, stating that laws are meant for ordinary citizens and should never become “a puzzle.” The remarks came while the Court was deciding a dispute involving the interpretation of amendments under the SARFAESI Act and competing claims over secured assets.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that clear and accessible legislation is essential for an effective justice delivery system. According to the Court, illustrations—once commonly found in landmark legislations such as the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Contract Act and the Transfer of Property Act—played a vital role in explaining the true scope of legal provisions and minimizing interpretational disputes.
The High Court noted that over the years, the practice of including illustrations in new legislation has gradually disappeared, even though they remain one of the most effective tools for explaining complex legal concepts. The Court remarked that wherever appropriate, lawmakers should consider incorporating practical examples while enacting or amending laws to make statutory provisions easier to understand for judges, lawyers, administrators and the general public alike.
Emphasizing the importance of legislative clarity, the Court further recommended that Parliament and state legislatures explicitly specify whether amendments are intended to operate prospectively, retrospectively or retroactively. It observed that uncertainty on this issue has frequently resulted in conflicting judicial interpretations, including before the Supreme Court, thereby prolonging litigation and creating avoidable legal confusion.
The observations were made in a case involving Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Official Liquidator of BPL Engineering Ltd., and the Commercial Tax Department. While adjudicating competing claims over mortgaged property, the Court held that registration of a security interest under the SARFAESI Act does not override a statutory first charge created under applicable State tax laws.
During the judgment, Justice Hegde explained that the wording used while introducing legislative amendments—such as “inserted,” “substituted,” or “amended”—often influences how courts determine whether a provision applies prospectively or retrospectively. The Court suggested that lawmakers remove this uncertainty by expressly stating the intended temporal application of every amendment within the legislation itself.
The Court clarified that its observations were not intended to dictate legislative policy but to highlight a practical issue affecting courts across the country. Greater precision in drafting, it noted, would substantially reduce interpretational disputes, improve legal certainty and promote consistency in judicial decisions.
Legal experts believe the observations could influence future law-making practices, particularly as India continues to modernize several major statutes. The judgment also revives discussion on legislative drafting standards, emphasizing that clarity and simplicity are essential for ensuring that laws remain accessible not only to legal professionals but also to the citizens they are intended to serve.
Although the Court’s recommendations are advisory and not binding on legislatures, the ruling is expected to contribute to broader policy discussions on improving the quality of statutory drafting. If adopted, the revival of illustrations and clearer drafting techniques could significantly reduce litigation arising from ambiguous legislative language and strengthen public confidence in the legal system.
