The Supreme Court of India has outlined key considerations for drafting a judgment, emphasizing that it should be written in clear and straightforward language, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

"Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment. We must remember that judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature", a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has said.

Additionally, it has been emphasized that a court's judgment should not include the judge's personal opinions on various subjects.

"Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The Judge has to decide a case and not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material...", top court adds.

The division bench has further outlined that when a court addresses an appeal against a conviction, the judgment should include:

(i) a concise summary of the case facts,
(ii) an overview of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense,
(iii) the arguments put forth by the parties,
(iv) an analysis based on the reappreciation of evidence, and
(v) the rationale for either upholding the conviction or acquitting the accused.

"The ultimate object of writing a judgment is to ensure that the parties before the Court know why the case is decided in their favour or against them. Therefore, judgment must be in a simple language. The conclusions recorded by the Court in the judgment on legal or factual issues must be supported by cogent reasons....", it has been held.

The Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the Calcutta High Court's order, criticized the High Court for its remarks reminding female adolescents of their duty to protect their bodily integrity. The apex court noted that such observations sent a harmful message.

The case involved the legality and validity of a judgment and order from September 19th/20th, 2022, which convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the principles applied by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when making such remarks.

The Supreme Court, taking up the matter suo motu under 'In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent,' observed that the High Court's comments were prima facie in violation of the adolescents' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that judges should refrain from expressing personal views or preaching while writing judgments in such appeals.