Written Arguments

The synopsis should never exceed one page. It is the most important page in your submissions - judges often read it first and sometimes only. If you cannot summarize your case compellingly in one page, you are including unnecessary details.

The standard structure begins with Synopsis (overview), followed by Questions of Law (issues), Brief Facts (chronological), Submissions (arguments), and Prayer (relief). This logical flow guides the reader from understanding the case to appreciating why your client should win.

The opening must capture attention with a compelling hook about what is at stake. Starting with procedural details like jurisdiction wastes the most important sentence. Compare "This writ petition is filed under Article 226..." (weak) with "This petition concerns the livelihood of 500 workers terminated without hearing..." (strong).

The correct SCC format is: Case Name v. Respondent, (Year) Volume SCC Page. So "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248" is correct. Note the year in parentheses, volume number before SCC, and page number after.

Pinpoint citations with specific paragraph references are most effective. They show you have read the judgment carefully and allow the court to verify your position immediately. Vague references to "various judgments" or "well settled law" are weak and suggest lack of preparation.

Ratio decidendi ("reason for deciding") is the legal principle essential to the decision - it is binding on lower courts. Obiter dicta ("things said by the way") are observations made in passing that are persuasive but not binding. Identifying which is which is a critical advocacy skill.

A Constitution Bench (5+ judges) decision trumps a two-judge bench decision. Under India's precedent system, larger benches overrule smaller benches. If a Constitution Bench has expressed a different view, the two-judge bench decision must yield to it.

Per incuriam (Latin: "through lack of care") refers to a decision rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of a relevant statutory provision or binding precedent. Such decisions lack precedential value because had the court been aware of the authority, it would likely have decided differently.

Successful distinguishing requires showing material factual differences that make the precedent's ratio inapplicable. Age of the precedent, retirement of judges, or citation frequency are irrelevant. Focus on legally significant differences in facts that affect whether the legal principle applies.

Follow the response hierarchy: (1) Distinguish on facts, (2) Narrow the ratio, (3) Cite subsequent developments limiting it, (4) Argue per incuriam/sub silentio, (5) Seek overruling. Start with the least aggressive approach and escalate only as necessary. Each level is more difficult and riskier than the previous.