Supreme Court and High Court Guidelines on Legal Drafting 2026

Judicial Emphasis on Quality Drafting

Indian courts have consistently emphasized the importance of clear, precise, and well-structured legal drafting. Supreme Court and High Court judgments have provided valuable guidelines on how legal documents — particularly pleadings, affidavits, and statutory forms — should be drafted. These judicial observations serve as drafting standards for the legal profession and are especially relevant for Company Secretaries who draft petitions before NCLT, NCLAT, and other tribunals.

Supreme Court Guidelines

Plain Language and Clarity

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: (a) Clarity over complexity: In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, the Court observed that legal documents should be in simple, clear language understandable to the parties — not laden with archaic terms and convoluted sentences. (b) Self-contained pleadings: Each pleading should be self-contained — the reader should understand the case from the pleading alone without needing to refer to multiple external documents. (c) Material facts only: The Court has consistently reinforced Order 6 Rule 2 CPC — pleadings should contain material facts, not evidence. Mixing facts with evidence creates confusion and lengthens proceedings.

Structured Drafting

The Supreme Court has endorsed: (a) Chronological narration: Facts should be presented in chronological order — from the origin of the dispute to the present situation. Jumping between time periods confuses the reader. (b) Numbered paragraphs: Each paragraph should deal with ONE fact or topic — facilitating easy reference in arguments and judgments. (c) Prayer clause specificity: The relief sought must be specific and precise — vague prayers ("any other relief as the Court deems fit") should be ancillary to specific prayers, not the primary relief.

Against Prolix (Lengthy) Pleadings

The Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) expressed concern about excessively long and verbose pleadings. The Court observed that: (a) prolix pleadings waste court time and delay proceedings, (b) lengthy affidavits with unnecessary repetition burden the judicial process, (c) parties should focus on material facts and concise arguments — not on overwhelming the court with volume. Some High Courts have imposed page limits on pleadings and affidavits — demonstrating the judiciary's commitment to concise drafting.

Accuracy of Legal Citations

The Supreme Court has emphasized: (a) correct citation of precedents — include the case name, year, court, and specific paragraph relied upon, (b) cite only relevant judgments — listing 50 judgments when 5 would suffice wastes time, (c) distinguish between binding precedent (Supreme Court, jurisdictional High Court) and persuasive authority (other High Courts, tribunals, foreign courts), (d) disclose adverse precedents — lawyers have a duty to bring to the court's attention judgments that go against their argument.

High Court Guidelines

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has issued practice directions: (a) affidavits should be concise — each paragraph dealing with one fact, (b) exhibits should be numbered sequentially and clearly referenced in the affidavit, (c) for company matters: petitions before the Company Court (now NCLT) should follow the prescribed form with all required particulars.

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has: (a) imposed page limits on certain categories of pleadings, (b) required structured arguments with numbered propositions, (c) encouraged use of written submissions (synopsis) for complex matters — reducing oral argument time, (d) mandated e-filing with proper formatting and indexing.

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has emphasized: (a) pleadings in simple English — avoiding unnecessary legal jargon, (b) proper verification of pleadings — separating personal knowledge facts from information-and-belief facts, (c) compliance with High Court Rules for formatting, pagination, and binding.

NCLT/NCLAT Drafting Standards

For Company Secretaries appearing before NCLT and NCLAT: (a) follow the prescribed NCLT forms (Form NCLT-1, NCLT-2, etc.) strictly, (b) include all required particulars — CIN, registered office, names of parties, nature of application, grounds, and prayer, (c) attach required documents — Board Resolutions, shareholder lists, financial statements, agreements, (d) affidavits must be properly sworn/affirmed before a Notary or Oath Commissioner, (e) serve copies on all respondents and file proof of service, (f) maintain organized petition sets — indexed, paginated, and tabbed for easy reference.

Best Practices Derived from Judicial Guidelines

For Pleadings:

(a) State facts in chronological order with numbered paragraphs

(b) Each paragraph: ONE fact only

(c) Separate personal knowledge from information and belief in verification

(d) Include ALL material facts — but ONLY material facts (not evidence)

(e) Prayer clause: specific reliefs followed by a general prayer

(f) Attach and properly reference all supporting documents

For Affidavits:

(a) State facts concisely — avoid repetition and verbose language

(b) Distinguish between facts within knowledge and facts on information

(c) Number each exhibit sequentially — Exhibit A, B, C or Annexure 1, 2, 3

(d) Reference exhibits in the affidavit text — "A true copy of the agreement dated [Date] is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-1"

(e) Properly sworn — before a Notary/Oath Commissioner with stamp duty

For Corporate Documents:

(a) Board Resolutions: cite the exact section under which the resolution is passed

(b) Notices: include ALL mandatory particulars under the relevant Section and SS-1/SS-2

(c) Minutes: follow the prescribed format — header, attendance, resolutions, conclusion

(d) Annual Report: structured as per Schedule III and Section 134 — Chairman's message, Board's Report, Financial Statements, Auditor's Report

Impact of Technology on Drafting Standards

Courts are increasingly embracing technology: (a) E-filing: Most courts now accept (or mandate) electronic filing — documents must be properly formatted, indexed, and searchable, (b) Hyperlinked documents: Some courts accept pleadings with hyperlinks to cited judgments and documents — improving accessibility, (c) Video submissions: NCLT and some High Courts accept video-recorded submissions for certain proceedings, (d) AI-assisted drafting: While AI tools are emerging for legal drafting — courts have cautioned about reliance on AI-generated content that may be inaccurate (citing non-existent judgments). Verify ALL AI-generated content before filing.