Humour Is A Powerful Literary Armament:

Sense of humour, someone has said, "is a thread of illuminated intelligence that links two opposite ideas." The seriousness of life may take a sudden plunge through the narrow window with a tinge of humour when it matters the most. One may often wonder what sort of humour can be there in the courtroom where people win or lose their suits or appeals, the accused are convicted and sent to jail or acquitted and set free, and couples are divorced or reconciled. Trust me, a lot of judges find occasion to sneak humor into judicial opinions which are known as solemn works, while others argue that jesting deserves sincere consideration.

In the opinion of the American jurist and lawyer, Alex Kozinski, "humour is the pepper spray in the arsenal of persuasive literary armaments, it is often surprising, disarming and, when delivered with precision, highly effective." However, given humour's enigmatic nature, people may long debate whether a judicial opinion is an effective cart for drawing laughs.

Judges/Lawyers Ignite Boring Opinions With Wit And Creativity:

Life, as we know, is like a drama, it has its thrills and spills, highs and lows and sometimes it is a serious roller coaster. More so is the life of a lawyer or a judge who by bringing humour into opinion tries to provide him some semblance of solidarity. It is because the nature of the adversarial system that judges and advocates frequently find themselves resolving disputes between parties in difficult situations.

One would tend to agree, courtrooms at times, are like live theatre, and they should be. The trial is scripted out as one would write a play. Although court proceedings are very rarely seen as opportunities for levity, at the same time, a few judges do take advantage of their linguistic perspicacity to turn their chambers into a laughter club while issuing rulings. While some people appreciate the use of humour in judicial opinions, others find it misplaced, arguing that court comedy disrespects parties and distracts from the merits of a case.

Perhaps because a judicial opinion, they think, is a serious document, the reader expects its content to be prosaic, dry and stern. But what's wrong if a little humour here and there raises its cool head in the courtroom? Let's not forget, humour is the delightful experience that outcomes from a resolution of the expected and unexpected.

William Shakespeare in As You Like It, says, "So long as men and women make their exits and entrances onto the stage of life, ridiculous and unlikely fact patterns will provide fodder for humorous opinions".

Instances Of Fun:
Let me mention a courtroom incident reported by Economic Times. Justice Kuldip Singh is believed to have demanded of Ramaswamy during the course of the hearing: "You think we are fools?" Ramaswamy replied with much gravity: "My lords have put me in a very difficult situation. If I agree I am in contempt, if I disagree I commit perjury." That got even the judges laughing.

Judges enliven otherwise mundane opinions with creativity and wit, sometimes, through poetry or unique literary devices. Judicial writings have parodied famous literary works, quoted song lyrics, and cited fables. Judges may invoke humor by playing with words or making puns. Courts draw laughs by working crafty references to popular culture and clever phrases into opinions.

Main v. Main, an Iowa Supreme Court decision involving an action for divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment, Justice Weaver wrote, "The parties did not drift into love unconsciously, as sometimes happens with younger and less experienced couples. Both knew from the start exactly what they wanted. She wanted a husband with money—or money with a husband. He wanted a wife to adorn his house and insure that conjugal felicity of which fate and the divorce court had repeatedly deprived him".

There was also a very interesting incident that took place in one of the American courtrooms where the judge, apparently bored by the counsel's argument, has gone to sleep. So the counsel leans forward and tells the court clerk: 'Charlie, wake him up.' Charlie cheekily responds: 'You wake him up, since you put him to sleep in the first place'.

An English judge unacquainted with the Hindu law of separation, asked the advocates who were appearing in the case, 'What share does a son-in-law get? "He has legally no share," replied the leading advocate, "but he grabs and takes away whatever he can lay his hands on."

In a referred trial in a High Court, a young man was given the brief for the accused who has been sentenced to death. The two judges who were to hear the case had a bad reputation for confirming every death sentence. A senior advocate looked into the printed papers with the junior engaged to defend the accused and said, "I congratulate you, you have got a strong case and are sure to win." What makes you think so?, asked the junior. "Because there are no witnesses", said the senior.

There are two eye-witnesses", replied the junior, look, they are coming", said the junior, pointing to the two judges who were coming to take their seats. The case was heard, the death sentence confirmed, and later, the accused was hanged to death.

Conveying A Serious Argument Through Humour:

Some judges craft funny opinions with puns and the clever use of words to create judicial humour. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the former judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit played with words emphasizing the cultural importance of the term "marriage," pointed out that Groucho Marx's one-liner, "Marriage is a wonderful institution . . . but who wants to live in an institution?" would lack its punch if the word "marriage" were replaced with the alternative phrase.

So too with Shakespeare's "A young man married is a man that's marred, (All's Well That's Ends Well)" Lincoln's (Former American President Abraham Lincoln) "Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory," and Sinatra's (American artist Frank Sinatra)"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late." We see tropes like "marrying for love" versus "marrying for money" played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized importance and permanence of the marriage relationship. By emphasizing the many uses of the word "marriage" in popular culture, Judge Reinhardt made his argument in a clear, lighthearted way.

Humour In The Process Of Adjudicating Disputes:

There is no denying that humor is sometimes appropriate in court rooms and in court orders, but a judge or a lawyer must take care to ensure that the comedic aspect of an opinion does not detract from its legal substance or humiliate the parties to the lawsuit. As we know, some cases are naturally funny. When they are discussed in the courtrooms, no matter how serious the judge's tone, courtroom humour is unavoidably created. A rule forbidding lawyers or jurists from using witty opinions or passing funny one liner would be practically impossible.

Furthermore, the legal profession prides itself on incisive and persuasive speeches. Therefore, advocates and judges should be free to employ a variety of humour, and preventing them from using humour would ultimately quell the creation of unique opinions that employ creative means to convey difficult concepts. In the process, the legal profession would lose the tradition of fun and witty opinions. Let's not deprive the future students of law of fun and laughter.

Written By: Dr SK Bose, School of Law, Manav Rachna University.